[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-1058
NABOR JESUS SANTA USUGA,
Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Frank M. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Alexander H. Shapiro
and Robert Kendall, Jr., Attorneys, Office of Immigration Litigation,
Department of Justice, Civil Division, on Respondent's Opposition to
Stay of Deportation.
April 13, 1995
Per Curiam. We vacate this court's January 17, 1995
stay of deportation and summarily deny the petition for
judicial review because petitioner is not entitled to any
relief in this court. Loc. R. 27.1.
The record before the Board fully supported the
deportation order and denial of relief from deportation.
While petitioner now claims that he was not warned of the
immigration consequences of admitting sufficient facts, and
he argues that those convictions are therefore invalid under
Mass. G. L. ch. 278, 29D, see Commonwealth v. Mahadeo, 397
Mass. 314 (1986), petitioner may not collaterally attack his
criminal convictions in the context of deportation
proceedings. Gouveia v. INS, 980 F.2d 814 (1st Cir. 1992).
Petitioner's contention that he has not been convicted
of a "trafficking" offense or an "aggravated felony" is
incorrect and ignores the definitions of those terms.
United States v. Rodriguez, 26 F.3d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1994);
United States v. Forbes, 16 F.3d 1294, 1300-01 (1st Cir.
1994); Amaral v. INS, 977 F.2d 33, 35-36 (1st Cir. 1992).
Nor has petitioner shown eligibility for discretionary
relief. Michelson v. INS, 897 F.2d 465, 469 (10th Cir. 1990)
(alien, who entered as a visitor, but remained longer than
permitted, was not "lawfully admitted for permanent
residence" and therefore was not eligible for 212(c)
relief).
-2-
The petition for judicial review is summarily denied.
-3-