Court Opinion

ID: 2963572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:12:13.725382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:52.210032
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          July 17, 1995
                                 [NOT FOR PUBICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2158 

                                HECTOR ROLANDO ADAMES,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________

                   ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE DECISION AND ORDER
                         OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Randy Olen on brief for petitioner.
            __________
            Frank  W.  Hunger,  Assistant  Attorney  General,  and  Ellen  Sue
            _________________                                       __________
        Shapiro, Attorney, Office  of Immigration Litigation, Civil  Division,
        _______
        United States Department of Justice, on brief for respondent.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   We have carefully reviewed the briefs
                      __________

            and the record.  We  see no basis to disturb  the immigration

            judge's denial of  a continuance or the  Board's dismissal of

            petitioner's appeal.   In moving for a  continuance one month

            after  he  had  entered an  appearance,  petitioner's counsel

            merely asserted  that he "suspect[ed] that  a post-conviction

            application would be based on the failure to give Immigration

            warnings."  He did  not explain the basis for  his suspicion.

            For  example, he did not indicate whether he had reviewed the

            state  court papers,  conferred with  trial counsel,  or even

            talked  with petitioner  to determine whether  petitioner had

            been aware of the possibility  of deportation when he entered

            his nolo  contendere plea.  We need not now decide under what

            circumstances, if  any, an  immigration judge should  grant a

            continuance in order to  allow a convicted alien to  pursue a

            collateral attack on his conviction.  We simply conclude that

            in view  of counsel's  meager showing, the  immigration judge

            did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance in this

            case.

                 The petition  for judicial  review is  summarily denied.

            Loc. R. 27.1.