USCA1 Opinion
October 19, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1587
EBENEZER ALUKO,
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. ______________
____________________
Louis B. Abilheira on brief for petitioner. __________________
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney, General, Joan E. Smiley, ________________ __ _
Senior Litigation Counsel, and Vernon Benet Miles, Attorney, Office of _________________________ __________________
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice, on
brief for respondent.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record __________
and petitioner's arguments.
We will not remand and direct the Board to consider
new evidence because, so far as appears from the record,
petitioner neither promptly notified the Board of his
marriage before the Board issued its decision nor promptly
moved to reopen under 8 C.F.R. 3.8. See Ramirez-Gonzalez ___ ________________
v. INS, 695 F.2d 1208, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 1983); Martinez de ___ ___________
Mendoza v. INS, 567 F.2d 1222, 1226 n.9 (3d Cir. 1977). _______ ___
The Immigration Judge and Board adequately
explained their reasons for denying discretionary relief from
deportation. We see no basis to disturb their decision.
The petition for judicial review is denied. Loc. ______
R. 27.1.