Aluko v. INS

Opinion

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          October 19, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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.