USCA1 Opinion
May 3, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-2239
GERMAN ARANGO-TAMAYO, A/K/A GERMAN ARANGO,
Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
____________________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF
ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
____________________
Before
Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Mark L. Galvin on brief for petitioner. ______________
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Ellen Sue Shapiro, _______________ _________________
Senior Litigation Counsel, and John T. Lynch, Jr., Attorney, Office of __________________
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, on
brief for respondent.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. The petitioner-appellant, German ___________
Arango-Tamayo, appeals from an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his request for relief
from deportation under Section 212(c) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(c). After careful review of
the parties' briefs and the record, we affirm, substantially
for the reasons given in the Immigration Judge's opinion
dated September 8, 1992, which was affirmed by the Board in
its opinion dated October 17, 1995. The petitioner has
failed to demonstrate that the denial was arbitrary,
capricious, or an abuse of discretion. See Gouveia v. ___ _______
I.N.S., 980 F.2d 814, 818 (1st Cir. 1992). Furthermore, he ______
may not assign as error the Board's failure to remand for
additional evidence, as he did not seek such relief below.
See Ravindran v. I.N.S., 976 F.2d 754, 761 (1st Cir. 1992). ___ _________ ______
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1. ________
-3-