Court Opinion

ID: 2962513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:58:39.667509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:01.106758
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          March 22, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 93-2004                                               EDSEL R. HARRY,                                     Petitioner,                                          v.                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,                                     Respondent.                                  __________________                         ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER                         OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS                                 ___________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                 ___________________               Edsel R. Harry on brief pro se.               ______________               Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Robert Kendall,               _______________                              _______________          Jr., Assistant Director, and Karen Fletcher Torstenson, Attorney,          __                           _________________________          Office  of Immigration  Litigation Civil  Division, on  brief for          respondent.                                  __________________                                  __________________                      Per Curiam.   We have carefully reviewed the record                      __________            and  conclude   that  the   decision  to  deny   relief  from            deportation  fell  within  the  broad range  of  the  Board's            permissible discretion.   See, e.g., Palacios-Torres  v. INS,                                      ___  ___   _______________     ___            995 F.2d 96, 99-101 (7th Cir. 1993).                      The petition for review is denied.                                         -2-