Adames v. INS

July 17, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 94-2158

HECTOR ROLANDO ADAMES,

Petitioner,

v.

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Before

Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.

Randy Olen on brief for petitioner.

Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, and Ellen Sue

Shapiro, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division,

United States Department of Justice, on brief for respondent.

Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the briefs

and the record. We see no basis to disturb the immigration

judge's denial of a continuance or the Board's dismissal of

petitioner's appeal. In moving for a continuance one month

after he had entered an appearance, petitioner's counsel

merely asserted that he "suspect[ed] that a post-conviction

application would be based on the failure to give Immigration

warnings." He did not explain the basis for his suspicion.

For example, he did not indicate whether he had reviewed the

state court papers, conferred with trial counsel, or even

talked with petitioner to determine whether petitioner had

been aware of the possibility of deportation when he entered

his nolo contendere plea. We need not now decide under what

circumstances, if any, an immigration judge should grant a

continuance in order to allow a convicted alien to pursue a

collateral attack on his conviction. We simply conclude that

in view of counsel's meager showing, the immigration judge

did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance in this

case.

The petition for judicial review is summarily denied.

Loc. R. 27.1.