Clarke v. INS

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

March 30, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

No. 94-2128

                                 ANTHONY DALE CLARKE,

                                     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.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Herbert P. Sklar on brief for petitioner.
            ________________
            Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Robert Kendall,  Jr.,
            _______________                              ____________________
        Assistant  Director, and  Alexander  H. Shaprio,  Attorney, Office  of
                                  _____________________
        Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondent.

____________________

____________________



Per Curiam.   All  that is  before  this court  for
                      __________

            review  is  the  board's  October  19,  1994  order   denying

            petitioner's perfunctory September 1994 motion to reopen.  We

            review for abuse  of discretion.  INS v. Doherty,  112 S. Ct.
                                              ______________

            719, 724-25 (1992);  Gando-Coello v. INS,  888 F.2d 197,  199
                                 ___________________

            (1st Cir. 1989).    Petitioner's  motion  to  reopen did  not

            comply with the requirements for reopening.  8 C.F.R.    3.2,

            3.8.  To the  extent petitioner was attempting to  revive his

            abandoned  application  for discretionary  relief, petitioner

            did  not adequately explain why  he and his  attorney had not

            appeared for the February 20, 1991  hearing and therefore did

            not  show why he should be given  another chance to apply for

            discretionary  relief.    8 C.F.R.     3.2.    To the  extent

            petitioner wanted  to present new evidence,  he failed timely

            to comply with   3.8's requirement to "state the new facts to

            be proved  at  the  reopened  hearing"  and  file  supporting

            affidavits or  other evidentiary  material.   The  board  was

            entitled to enforce its procedural requirements and hence did

            not abuse its  discretion in denying  petitioner's motion  to

            reopen.

                 The petition  for judicial  review is summarily  denied.

            Loc. R. 27.1.