Almonte-Rodriguez v. INS ( 1994 )

USCA1 Opinion

          May 6, 1994
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 93-2307

         

              BERNARDO ANTONIO ALMONTE-RODRIGUEZ, A/K/A MELANIO ESPINAL,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

                                     Respondent.


                                 ____________________

                          ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
                         OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                             Torruella, Selya and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Melanio Espinal on Petition  for Review of  an Order of the  Board
            _______________
        of Immigration Appeals pro se.
            Frank W.  Hunger, Assistant  Attorney General,  Richard M.  Evans,
            ________________                                _________________
        Assistant  Director,  and Ellen  Sue  Shapiro,  Office of  Immigration
                                  ___________________
        Litigation,  Civil Division, U.S. Department  of Justice, on brief for
        respondent.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________



















                      Per Curiam.   We have  reviewed the  record and  we
                      __________

            conclude  that  the  Board  did not  abuse  its  considerable

            discretion  in determining  that  petitioner did  not warrant

            discretionary relief from deportation.

                      1.  Petitioner faults  the Board for not mentioning

            various pieces of evidence, but the Board was not required to

            do so.   The  immigration judge  dictated a lengthy  opinion,

            containing   extensive  factual   findings  and   a  reasoned

            explanation  for the  denial  of discretionary  relief.   The

            Board, in a short  order, agreed with the  immigration judge,

            affirmed his decision, and briefly summarized the reasons for

            denying  discretionary relief.    This was  sufficient.   The

            Board is not required  to restate every piece of  evidence or

            detail of reasoning.  See Martinez  v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976
                                  ___ ________     ___

            (1st Cir. 1992) (Board  not required to "address specifically

            each  claim the petitioner made on each piece of evidence the

            petitioner presented").

                      2.     Neither  the  Board  nor  immigration  judge

            improperly  applied  precedent  or abused  its  discretion in

            concluding that petitioner was not sufficiently rehabilitated

            and in considering the lack of rehabilitation in its decision

            to deny discretionary relief.  Gonzalez v. INS, 996 F.2d 804,
                                           ________    ___

            811-12  (6th Cir. 1993); Akrap  v. INS, 966  F.2d 267, 272-73
                                     _____     ___

            (7th Cir. 1992).





















                      3.  We  will not  consider petitioner's  challenge,

            raised for  the first time in his reply brief, to the Board's

            allegedly unwritten policy of denying discretionary relief to

            any drug  offender.   There  is nothing  on the  face of  the

            immigration   judge's   lengthy   opinion  (which   carefully

            considered   and  weighed   the  favorable   and  unfavorable

            circumstances  pertaining to  petitioner) or  in the  Board's

            decision  indicating  that such  an unwritten  policy exists;

            petitioner's drug involvement was  not minor or isolated; and

            litigants  may not raise issues for the first time in a reply

            brief.  Pignons S.A. de Mecanique v. Polaroid Corp., 701 F.2d
                    _________________________    ______________

            1, 3 (1st Cir. 1983).

                      The petition for judicial review is denied.
                                                          ______



























                                         -3-