Court Opinion

ID: 2964106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:33.000877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:50.655235
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        June 4, 1996            [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1925

                            RODOLFO DE JESUS PINON-MACEO,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

                                     Respondent.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                          ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER

                         OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Herbert P. Sklar for petitioner.
             ________________
             James  A.  Hunolt, Attorney,  Office  of  Immigration Litigation,
             _________________
        Civil  Division, Department  of  Justice, with  whom Frank  W. Hunger,
                                                             ________________
        Assistant  Attorney  General, Civil  Division,  and  David V.  Bernal,
                                                             ________________
        Senior  Litigation   Counsel,  Civil  Division,  were   on  brief  for
        respondent.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                    Per Curiam.  Rodolfo de Jesus Pinon-Maceo petitions for
                    Per Curiam
                    __________

          review  of a  discretionary  Board of  Immigration Appeals  order

          denying his motion to reopen an earlier deportation hearing.  The

          motion to reopen indicated no abuse of discretion by the BIA, see
                                                                        ___

          INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992), but simply attempted to
          ___    _______

          relitigate the merits of  the original claim for asylum,  but see
                                                                    ___ ___

          Caruncho v.  INS, 68 F.3d 356, 359-62 (9th Cir. 1995), viz., that
          ________     ___                                       ____

          deportation  to  Cuba  would   subject  him  to  prosecution  and

          imprisonment for  having jumped  a Cuban  vessel while  docked in

          Canada.   The  BIA  upheld  an  Immigration Judge's  ruling  that

          petitioner  was   ineligible,  either  for  asylum   or  for  the

          withholding  of  deportation,  since  his  asserted  fears   were

          predicated on possible prosecution, not persecution.  

                    A motion to reopen seeks permissive relief,  see id. at
                                                                 ___ __

          361,  which  may  be  denied  solely  because  it  introduces  no

          "'previously unavailable, material evidence . . . .'"  Id. at 360
                                                                 ___

          (quoting Doherty,  502 U.S. at 323),  as was the case  here.  The
                   _______

          motion  to reopen  alleged that  petitioner would  be exposed  to

          imprisonment  or death for having  jumped ship.   It claimed that

          the situation had been worsened by a more restrictive immigration

          policy  announced on  May  2, 1995,  pertaining  to future  Cuban

          "rafters."    The BIA  concluded  that petitioner  had  failed to

          demonstrate  that the  motion  to reopen  was  based on  any  new

          evidence,  the immigration  policy on  "rafters" notwithstanding.

          We agree.  

                                          2

                    Petitioner  has not  shown,  either before  the BIA  or

          here, that the new immigration policy was material to his request
                                                    ________

          for  asylum  or  withholding  deportation.    At  most,  the  new

          immigration  policy allegedly  exacerbated petitioner's  fears of

          "prosecution" for having jumped ship  in violation of Cuban  law,

          as  distinguished from  a legitimate  fear of "persecution."   As

          there was  no error in the  BIA determination that  the claim for

          asylum was unfounded because an "alien's prosecution and possible

          imprisonment for civil or criminal  violations pursuant to law do

          not constitute  persecution," there  can  have been  no abuse  of

          discretion.  See id.
                       ___ __

                    The petition for review is denied.
                    The petition for review is denied.
                    _________________________________

                                          3