Clarke v. INS
Case Date: 03/30/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 94-2128
|
March 30, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 94-2128 ANTHONY DALE CLARKE, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION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. |