```
       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION   NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit





No. 98-1609

                     VITO STEFANO PROVENZANO,

                           Petitioner,

                                v.

             IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

                           Respondent.




                 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
              OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS




                              Before

                     Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                 Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Shadur, Senior U.S. District Judge.




     Stephen A. Lagana with whom Lagana & Associates was on brief
for petitioner.
     Brenda M. O'Malley, Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, with whom Karen Ann Hunold, Senior Litigation Counsel,
and Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, were on brief for
respondent.




February 25, 1999



      Per Curiam.  Vito Stefano Provenzano, who entered the
    United States from Italy in 1983 as a non-immigrant visitor
    for pleasure, among other misconduct over-stayed; obtained
    unlawful employment; paid no income tax on his wages;
    purchased a counterfeit Temporary Resident Card; and, in
    January 1992, went back to Italy with it to attend to a family
    matter and returned on January 29 only to have the fraud
    discovered.  He signed a sworn statement admitting the
    counterfeiting and, withdrawing his application for admission,
    returned to Italy.
      Skipping some in-between matters, including marriage
    to a naturalized American citizen and unlawful entry from
    Canada, on February 2, 1993 Provenzano obtained an immigrant
    visa from an American Consular Officer in Naples by
    representing that, among other things, he had never been
    refused admission into the United States or sought entry
    through fraud or misrepresentation.  On February 6 in Boston
    the INS refused admission and placed him into exclusion
    proceedings.  After several hearings an immigration judge
    found him excludable, but granted a discretionary waiver of
    inadmissability under 8 U.S.C. � 1182(i).  On an appeal by the
    INS the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed on August 1,
    1997.  Its six main reasons, plus incidentals, make one wonder
    at the earlier decision.  We pass the subsequent proceedings
    that lead to our present question:  whether the Board's denial
    to reopen that decision because of inadequate counsel should
  be reversed.    The claim on appeal revolves around
    Provenzano's representations that he had never been refused
    entry or fraudulently sought entry.
       It could be found that Provenzano had been advised by
    counsel that he could say he had never been refused entry in
    light of the fact that he had withdrawn his application before
    formal action and that he had acted reasonably in relying on
    that advice.  There was no such claim or support for the
    serious misrepresentation that he had never sought entry
    through fraud or misrepresentation.  The Board wrote a
    persuasive opinion on May 21, 1998.  The appeal is meritless.
       Affirmed.
```