Just to be clear, yes I agree 100% with this statement of yours

The commission has the discretion to decide how much weight to give the Collins family. Similarly, a judge can hear a victim impact statement, and decide how much weight to give it (within the constraints of sentencing guidelines and the U.S. Constitution). If you agree that they can factor in the views of the Collins family, then there is nothing to stop any given commissioner to adopt those views as the deciding factor in his or her decision.

They could indeed choose to give weight to the Collins family objections (this presuming they even will object), and rule in their favour, at their discretion. There is no problem with that.

But the assumption that they should do this, is completely wrong in my view.

Another parallel would be the case of Roman Polanski. A fugitive from the US for drugging and raping a 13 year old girl in the 70's he is still wanted by the American authorites and would be arrested as soon as he stepped foot on US soil even though the victim (now in her 40's) has repeatedly said she wishes they would drop the charges against him as she wants to forget it and go on with her own life.

They won't drop the charges of course, because ultimately his crimes weren't just against that girl but against society. He voilated the law and thus is a lwa brealer regardless of the victims wishes.

LIkewise in the other direction. When somebody serves their sentence they are a free man again, their penalty paid. That means in the case of Luis Resto, his rights matter as well. He is no longer a guilty man, but a reformed man. Therefore his ability to earn an effective living outside of boxing will likely be given more weight than the feelings of the Collins family. That is how it should be too imo.

I think the whole question is kind of moot anyway as he visted the family on that documentary anyway and they forgave him. They likely won't block it anyhow.