USCA1 Opinion
May 6, 1994
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 93-2307
BERNARDO ANTONIO ALMONTE-RODRIGUEZ, A/K/A MELANIO ESPINAL,
Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
____________________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
____________________
Before
Torruella, Selya and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Melanio Espinal on Petition for Review of an Order of the Board
_______________
of Immigration Appeals pro se.
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans,
________________ _________________
Assistant Director, and Ellen Sue Shapiro, Office of Immigration
___________________
Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, on brief for
respondent.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. We have reviewed the record and we
__________
conclude that the Board did not abuse its considerable
discretion in determining that petitioner did not warrant
discretionary relief from deportation.
1. Petitioner faults the Board for not mentioning
various pieces of evidence, but the Board was not required to
do so. The immigration judge dictated a lengthy opinion,
containing extensive factual findings and a reasoned
explanation for the denial of discretionary relief. The
Board, in a short order, agreed with the immigration judge,
affirmed his decision, and briefly summarized the reasons for
denying discretionary relief. This was sufficient. The
Board is not required to restate every piece of evidence or
detail of reasoning. See Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976
___ ________ ___
(1st Cir. 1992) (Board not required to "address specifically
each claim the petitioner made on each piece of evidence the
petitioner presented").
2. Neither the Board nor immigration judge
improperly applied precedent or abused its discretion in
concluding that petitioner was not sufficiently rehabilitated
and in considering the lack of rehabilitation in its decision
to deny discretionary relief. Gonzalez v. INS, 996 F.2d 804,
________ ___
811-12 (6th Cir. 1993); Akrap v. INS, 966 F.2d 267, 272-73
_____ ___
(7th Cir. 1992).
3. We will not consider petitioner's challenge,
raised for the first time in his reply brief, to the Board's
allegedly unwritten policy of denying discretionary relief to
any drug offender. There is nothing on the face of the
immigration judge's lengthy opinion (which carefully
considered and weighed the favorable and unfavorable
circumstances pertaining to petitioner) or in the Board's
decision indicating that such an unwritten policy exists;
petitioner's drug involvement was not minor or isolated; and
litigants may not raise issues for the first time in a reply
brief. Pignons S.A. de Mecanique v. Polaroid Corp., 701 F.2d
_________________________ ______________
1, 3 (1st Cir. 1983).
The petition for judicial review is denied.
______
-3-