Court Opinion

ID: 2964043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:19:32.049888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:49.704031
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          May 3, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2239

                      GERMAN ARANGO-TAMAYO, A/K/A GERMAN ARANGO,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________

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

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Mark L. Galvin on brief for petitioner.
            ______________
            Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Ellen Sue Shapiro,
            _______________                              _________________
        Senior Litigation Counsel, and John T. Lynch, Jr., Attorney, Office of
                                       __________________
        Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, on
        brief for respondent.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    The   petitioner-appellant,  German
                      ___________

            Arango-Tamayo,  appeals  from  an   order  of  the  Board  of

            Immigration  Appeals (Board) denying  his request  for relief

            from deportation under Section  212(c) of the Immigration and

            Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.   1182(c).  After careful review of

            the parties' briefs and  the record, we affirm, substantially

            for  the reasons  given  in the  Immigration Judge's  opinion

            dated September 8, 1992,  which was affirmed by the  Board in

            its opinion  dated  October 17,  1995.   The  petitioner  has

            failed   to  demonstrate  that   the  denial  was  arbitrary,

            capricious,  or  an  abuse of  discretion.    See Gouveia  v.
                                                          ___ _______

            I.N.S., 980 F.2d 814,  818 (1st Cir. 1992).   Furthermore, he
            ______

            may not assign  as error  the Board's failure  to remand  for

            additional evidence, as  he did not  seek such relief  below.

            See Ravindran v. I.N.S., 976 F.2d 754, 761 (1st Cir. 1992).
            ___ _________    ______

                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________

                                         -3-