Court Opinion

ID: 2963721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:15.585866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:45.939388
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 19, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                            

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1587 

                                   EBENEZER ALUKO,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________

                          ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
                         OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Louis B. Abilheira on brief for petitioner.
            __________________
            Frank  W. Hunger,  Assistant  Attorney,  General, Joan  E. Smiley,
            ________________                                __               _
        Senior Litigation Counsel, and Vernon Benet Miles, Attorney, Office of
        _________________________      __________________
        Immigration Litigation,  Civil  Division, Department  of  Justice,  on
        brief for respondent.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  We  have carefully reviewed the record
                      __________

            and petitioner's arguments.  

                      We will not remand and direct the Board to consider

            new evidence  because, so  far  as appears  from the  record,

            petitioner  neither   promptly  notified  the  Board  of  his

            marriage before  the Board  issued its decision  nor promptly

            moved to reopen under  8 C.F.R.   3.8.   See Ramirez-Gonzalez
                                                     ___ ________________

            v. INS, 695 F.2d  1208, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 1983);  Martinez de
               ___                                            ___________

            Mendoza v. INS, 567 F.2d 1222, 1226 n.9 (3d Cir. 1977).
            _______    ___

                      The   Immigration   Judge   and  Board   adequately

            explained their reasons for denying discretionary relief from

            deportation.  We see no basis to disturb their decision.

                      The petition  for judicial review is  denied.  Loc.
                                                            ______

            R. 27.1.