July 17, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 94-2158
HECTOR ROLANDO ADAMES,
Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
Randy Olen on brief for petitioner.
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, and Ellen Sue
Shapiro, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, on brief for respondent.
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the briefs
and the record. We see no basis to disturb the immigration
judge's denial of a continuance or the Board's dismissal of
petitioner's appeal. In moving for a continuance one month
after he had entered an appearance, petitioner's counsel
merely asserted that he "suspect[ed] that a post-conviction
application would be based on the failure to give Immigration
warnings." He did not explain the basis for his suspicion.
For example, he did not indicate whether he had reviewed the
state court papers, conferred with trial counsel, or even
talked with petitioner to determine whether petitioner had
been aware of the possibility of deportation when he entered
his nolo contendere plea. We need not now decide under what
circumstances, if any, an immigration judge should grant a
continuance in order to allow a convicted alien to pursue a
collateral attack on his conviction. We simply conclude that
in view of counsel's meager showing, the immigration judge
did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance in this
case.
The petition for judicial review is summarily denied.
Loc. R. 27.1.