George Simeon Cabasug, Also Known as Simeon Salum Cabasug, Jr. v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s deportation order and denial of discretionary relief under § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S. C. § 1182(c) (1982). The main issue in the case, below and here, was applicability of § 1182(c), set forth below. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a (1982). We determine that the immigration judge’s order was valid and dismiss the petition.

Mr. Cabasug, a citizen of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States as a permanent resident in 1968. In 1983, he was convicted in the California Superior Court of carrying a sawed-off shotgun, while on probation for assault with a deadly weapon. He was later judged deporta-ble, under § 241(a)(14) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (a)(14) (1982), which provides for deportation of persons convicted of carrying a sawed-off shotgun or machine gun. Mr. Cabasug’s brothers and sisters, parents, wife and children all reside in the United States. The immigration judge denied discretionary relief under § 1182(c) and ordered him deported. The BIA held that discretionary relief under § 1182(c)…

concurring:

I concur with the majority, although my analysis is somewhat different. In Tapia-Acuna v. INS, 640 F.2d 223 (9th Cir.1981) (Tapia) we held that when the basis upon which the INS seeks deportation is identical to a statutory ground for exclusion for which discretionary relief would be available, the equal protection component of the fifth amendment due process clause requires that discretionary relief be accorded in the deportation context as well. Id. at 224-25 ; accord Francis v. INS, 532 F.2d 268 (2d Cir.1976) (Francis)] see also Gutierrez v. INS, 745 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir.1984) (dicta). We reached this result because persons situated in a like manner must receive like treatment. We did not think it rational to distinguish between aliens who had committed the same crime on the basis of whether they traveled abroad recently, arid reach a different result depending on whether they were in a deportation or exclusion proceeding. Tapia, 640 F.2d at 225 ; see also Francis, 532 F.2d at 273 .

In this case, however, the holdings of Francis and Tapia are not applicable. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held *1328 that no discretionary relief from deportation would be…

847 F.2d 1321 George Simeon CABASUG, also known as Simeon Salum Cabasug, Jr., Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 86-7451. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 9, 1987. Decided Jan. 26, 1988. As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc May 27, 1988. Marc Van Der Hout and Adria-Ann McMurray, Redwood City, Cal., for petitioner. David J. Kline and Linda S. Wendtland, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. 1 On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. 2 Before WALLACE and POOLE, Circuit Judges, and KLEINFELD, * District Judge. KLEINFELD, District Judge: 3 Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's deportation order and denial of discretionary relief under Sec. 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182 (c) (1982). The main issue in the case, below and here, was applicability of Sec. 1182(c), set forth below. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1105a (1982). We determine that the immigration judge's order was valid and dismiss the petition.…