USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-