palma-Olvera

Cite as 

 (BIA 2025)                                 Interim Decision #4149




            Matter of Israel PALMA-OLVERA, Respondent
                        Decided by Board October 2, 2025 1
                           U.S. Department of Justice
                    Executive Office for Immigration Review
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

  The Immigration Judge erred in determining that the respondent, who had two
convictions for driving while intoxicated, had overcome the presumption that he lacked
good moral character based on his care for his son and his history of employment.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Pro se
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Joshua S. Levy, Assistant
Chief Counsel
BEFORE: Board Panel:          HUNSUCKER, GOODWIN, and GEMOETS, Appellate
Immigration Judges.
GEMOETS, Appellate Immigration Judge:


    The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appeals from the
December 9, 2024, decision of the Immigration Judge granting the
respondent’s application for cancellation of removal for certain
nonpermanent residents under section 240A(b)(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2024). The respondent, a
native and citizen of Mexico, has filed a response in opposition to the appeal.
The appeal will be sustained, and the respondent will be ordered removed
from the United States.

   An applicant for cancellation of removal must demonstrate that he has
been a person of good moral character during the previous 10 years and that
he is deserving of relief as a matter of discretion. INA § 240A(b)(1)(B),
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(B); see also INA § 240(c)(4)(A), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(4)(A) (2024) (providing that an applicant for discretionary relief
from removal bears the burden to demonstrate that he satisfies the eligibility
requirements and merits a favorable exercise of discretion). Relevant to good

1
   Pursuant to Order No. 6518-2025, dated December 8, 2025, the Attorney General
designated the Board’s decision in Matter of Palma-Olvera (BIA Oct. 2, 2025), as
precedent in all proceedings involving the same issue or issues. See 

(g)(3)
(2025). Editorial changes have been made consistent with the designation of the case as a
precedent.

                                           page
                                           355
Cite as 

 (BIA 2025)                        Interim Decision #4149




moral character and discretion are the respondent’s convictions for two
offenses involving driving while intoxicated (“DWI”) in 2022 and 2024.
DHS argues that the respondent did not meet his burden to establish that he
has been a person of good moral character during the statutory period based
on his DWI history. Whether the respondent has been a person of good moral
character is a legal issue we review de novo. See 

(d)(3)(ii)
(2025). Furthermore, the respondent must establish that he warrants relief as
a matter of discretion. Matter of Castillo-Perez, 

(A.G. 2019).

    The Attorney General has held that “when assessing an alien’s good
moral character under section 101(f) of the [INA], 

(f)
[(2024)], evidence of two or more convictions [for driving under the
influence] during the relevant period establishes a rebuttable presumption
that the alien lacked good moral character during that time.” Matter of
Castillo-Perez, 

 (A.G. 2019). The presumption may
only be overcome in “an unusual case in which an alien can establish that the
multiple convictions were an aberration and can show good moral character.”

.

    The respondent is subject to the presumption that he lacked good moral
character during the statutory period based on his two DWI convictions. The
Immigration Judge determined that the respondent rebutted the presumption
based on evidence that he financially supports his United States citizen son,
he is very active in his son’s life and makes efforts to help his son navigate
life while dealing with autism, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, and
other diagnosed mood disorders, he has maintained gainful employment, and
character witnesses attest to his dedication and responsibility. Caring for his
son and maintaining gainful employment do not constitute an “unusual case”
sufficient to “overcome the strong evidence” that the respondent lacked good
moral character based on recidivist conduct involving DWI offenses that
occurred while in the course of these proceedings. 

    Besides the fact of the respondent’s DWI convictions, the circumstances
surrounding the incidents further undermine the respondent’s ability to
satisfy his burden to rebut the presumption that he lacked good moral
character during the statutory period. He testified that he drank 8 to 10 beers
every night at home or at a bar during the period prior to his first DWI
offense. Additionally, he drank seven or eight beers before driving his
vehicle into a lamp post during the first DWI offense and kept drinking after
his first DWI conviction. Moreover, he had six or seven alcoholic drinks in
the 3 hours immediately prior to his second DWI offense, and his blood
alcohol content was over 0.15, well above the legal limit. He also testified
                                     Page
                                     356
Cite as 

 (BIA 2025)                       Interim Decision #4149




that he never sought any counseling or treatment after his first DWI
conviction. Based on this record, we conclude that the respondent has not
met his burden to rebut the presumption that he lacked good moral character
during the previous 10 years, and he is therefore ineligible for cancellation
of removal. Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.

   ORDER: DHS’ appeal is sustained.
   FURTHER ORDER: The Immigration Judge’s December 9, 2024,
decision is vacated.

   FURTHER ORDER: The respondent’s application for cancellation of
removal is denied.

   FURTHER ORDER: The respondent is ordered removed to Mexico.
    NOTICE: If a respondent is subject to a final order of removal and
willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States pursuant to the
order, to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents
necessary to depart the United States, or to present himself or herself at the
time and place required for removal by DHS, or conspires to or takes any
action designed to prevent or hamper the respondent’s departure pursuant to
the order of removal, the respondent shall be subject to a civil monetary
penalty of up to $998 for each day the respondent is in violation. See INA
§ 274D, 8 U.S.C. § 1324d (2024); 

(b)(14) (2025).




                                     Page
                                     357