ROBERTS

noting that a respondent’s assurances alone are insufficient to show genuine rehabilitation

“While inquiry may be had into the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime in order to determine whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted, it is impermissible to go behind a record of conviction to reassess the alien’s ultimate guilt or innocence.”

“[I]t is impermissible to go behind a record of conviction to reassess an alien’s ultimate guilt or innocence.”

noting that an alien’s “assurances” alone are not sufficient to “show genuine rehabilitation”

noting that an alien’s “assurances” alone are not sufficient to “show genuine rehabilitation”

finding that one conviction for sale of cocaine brought the respondent within the definition of a drug trafficker

finding that an alien who was deportable for the sale of cocaine was not eligible for Section 212(c) relief, in spite of the alien’s otherwise clean criminal record and his family connections to the United States

allowing consideration of circumstances surrounding a crime, but prohibiting going "behind a record of conviction to reassess an alien’s ultimate guilt or innocence”

considering rehabilitation to be a “significant discretionary factor.”

“We do not consider the respondent’s employment history to be an unusual or outstanding equity. The irregularity of his employment between 1987 and 1989 certainly impairs the significance of this factor.”