Court Opinion

ID: 2963280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:08:06.207118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:39.591341
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          March 29, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1906                                      FELIX NUNEZ,                                     Petitioner,                                          v.                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,                                     Respondent.                                 ____________________                          ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER                         OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________                                 ____________________            Felix Nunez on brief pro se.
            ___________            Frank W. Hunger,  Assistant Attorney General, Stewart Deutsch  and
            _______________                               _______________        Donald E.  Keener, Attorneys, Office of  Immigration Litigation, Civil
        _________________        Division, U.S. Department of Justice, on brief for respondent.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Petitioner Felix Nunez  seeks review of  a
                 __________            decision  of the  Board of  Immigration Appeals  upholding an            Immigration  Judge's  order  that   he  be  deported  to  the            Dominican  Republic.     Assuming  arguendo  that   appellate
                                               ________            jurisdiction  exists  with  regard to  his  prematurely filed            petition,  see, e.g., In re Villa  Marina Yacht Harbor, Inc.,
                       ___  ____  ______________________________________            984 F.2d 546,  548 n.2 (1st Cir. 1993),  we deny the petition            for review and enforce the order of deportation.                   As the Immigration Judge correctly found, petitioner was            ineligible to apply for a discretionary waiver under   212(c)            of the Immigration  and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.    1182(c),            for two  separate reasons.  Petitioner  lacked (and continues            to   lack)  the   "seven   consecutive   years"  of   "lawful            unrelinquished domicile" that are a statutory prerequisite to            such relief.   See, e.g., Goncalves  v. INS, 6 F.3d  830, 834
                           ___  ____  _________     ___            (1st Cir.  1993)  (seven-year clock  "stop[s]  ticking"  once            Board upholds deportation order).   As well,   212(c)  relief            is unavailable to an  alien who is deportable for  a firearms            offense.  See, e.g.,  Campos v. INS, 961  F.2d 309 (1st  Cir.
                      ___  ____   ______    ___            1992).                   In turn, petitioner satisfied  none of the prerequisites            for an  adjustment of  status under    245(a)  of the  Act, 8            U.S.C.    1255(a).  It  suffices to note in  this regard that            his drug convictions rendered  him inadmissible to the United            States, see,  e.g., Jenkins v. INS,  32 F.3d 11, 15  (2d Cir.
                    ___   ____  _______    ___

            1994),  and therefore  ineligible for    245(a)  relief, see,
                                                                     ___            e.g., Rodrigues v. INS, 994 F.2d 32, 33 (1st Cir. 1993).  And
            ____  _________    ___            again because  of petitioner's failure to  satisfy   212(c)'s            seven-year  requirement,  the   form  of  concurrent   relief            described in In re Gabryelsky, Int. Dec. 3213 (BIA 1993); see
                         ________________                             ___            also Snajder v. INS,  29 F.3d 1203, 1207-08 (7th  Cir. 1994),
            ____ _______    ___            is not an available option.                   The petition  for  review is  denied  and the  order  of
                 ________________________________________________________            deportation is enforced.
            _______________________                                         -3-