Petitioner's Brief at 3. While the BIA has recognized that discretionary decisions without guidance "may be applied in a stereotyped manner," In re C-V-T-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 7, 11 (BIA 1998) (quoting In re L-, 3 I. & N. Dec. 767, 770 (BIA, A.G. 1949)), James does not allege that the BIA considered improper factors, such as race or gender, in making its decisions. And the factors James cites (property ownership, family ties, and employment) are among the factors that the BIA consistently considers in determining whether discretionary relief is warranted.
"[T]here is no inflexible standard for determining who should be granted discretionary relief, and each case must be judged on its own merits." Id. at 11 (citing In re L-, 3 I. N. Dec. 767, 770 (BIA 1949)). In applying his discretion, the IJ must "balance the adverse factors evidencing an alien's undesirability as a permanent resident with the social and humane considerations presented in his behalf to determine whether the granting of section 212(c) relief appears in the best interest of this country."
To the contrary, we explicitly reject such an "inflexible test" and recognize the "undesirability and `difficulty, if not impossibility, of defining any standard in discretionary matters of this character.'" Marin, 16 I. N. Dec. at 584 ( quoting Matter of L-, 3 I. N. Dec. 767, 770 (B.I.A. 1949)). But at the very least, an IJ must demonstrate that he or she reviewed the record and balanced the relevant factors and must discuss the positive or adverse factors that support his or her decision.