Modesto Runato Rarogal v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Good Law
42 F.3d 570·94 Daily Journal DAR 17595·1994 WL 698763·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 35118·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9488
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 15, 199493-70380California1,197 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kleinfeld, J.

Rarogal petitioned for relief from deportation. We remand. The Board of Immigration Appeals apparently did not consider rehabilitation, even though the Immigration and Naturalization Service stipulated that relief from deportation was appropriate for that reason.

I. FACTS

Rarogal came from the Philippines to Hawaii in 1980. He was admitted as á lawful permanent resident. His wife could not get a visa until nine years later. She arrived in 1989. They have two small children. Raro-gal works full time at a fast food restaurant. So does his wife. In addition, she works as a suite attendant in a hotel. Rarogal cooks, and takes care of the house and their small children, when she is at her second job. Rarogal has been steadily employed since his arrival in 1980.

During the years when he was in Hawaii and his wife was still in the Philippines, Rarogal drank and got in trouble with the law. In 1982, he was convicted of theft, for walking out on a bar tab. In 1986, he was convicted of theft again, for shoplifting some batteries. Later in 1986, he was convicted of a much more serious crime, assault in the third degree, attempted assault, and terroristic threatening. He and his cousin…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.