USCA1 Opinion
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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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.