Innis v. INS ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

          October 11, 1996  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                   _______________







          No.  96-1314





                        EAN ANTHONY INNIS, a/k/a ANTHONY ROME,

                               a/k/a EAN ANTHONY INNIS,

                                     Petitioner,



                                          v.



                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

                                     Respondent.



                                _____________________





                                     ERRATA SHEET









               The  opinion of this Court  issued on September  24, 1996 is

          amended as follows:



               On page 2, line 7, change "here" to "hear"







































































          October 4, 1996       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1314



                        EAN ANTHONY INNIS, a/k/a ANTHONY ROME,

                               a/k/a EAN ANTHONY INNIS,



                                     Petitioner,



                                          v.



                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,



                                     Respondent.





                                 ____________________



                          ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER



                         OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS







                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Ean Anthony Innis on brief pro se.
_________________

            Frank W.  Hunger, Assistant Attorney  General, Brenda E.  Ellison,
________________                               __________________

        Senior  Litigation  Counsel,  Office  of Immigration  Litigation,  and

        Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation.
______________________





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________









































                 Per  Curiam.  After careful review of the record and the
___________



            petition for  review,  we  find  no  reason  to  reverse  the



            decision of the BIA.  Accordingly, we affirm, essentially for



            the  reasons  stated  in   that  decision,  adding  only  the



            following comments.



                 1.   We   assume,  without   deciding,   that  we   have



            jurisdiction to  hear this petition.   See Anti-Terrorism and
___



            Effective Death Penalty Act, Public Law No. 104-132,   440(a)



            (to be codified at 8 U.S.C.   1105(a)(10)).



                 2.  The BIA  considered all the evidence,  made specific



            findings  as to both  the positive and  negative factors, and



            explained  how it  reached  the  decision  that  petitioner's



            outstanding   equities  (long  residence,  family  ties,  and



            rehabilitation  efforts)  were  outweighed  by  his extensive



            criminal  history.    The grant  or  denial  of  a waiver  of



            deportation  remains a  matter  of BIA  discretion, and  this



            court will not "second-guess the Board on the manner in which



            it weights  different factors  when arriving at  its ultimate



            decision."   See Gouveia v. INS, 980  F.2d 814, 819 (1st Cir.
___ _______    ___



            1992).



                 3.   Petitioner argues in essence  that he was "merely a



            minor  drug peddlar" and not  a "drug trafficker,"  and so he



            should not  have been required to  show outstanding equities.



            See Elramly v. INS, 73  F.3d 220, 223 (9th Cir.  1995), cert.
___ _______    ___                                      _____



            granted, 116 S. Ct.  1260 (1996).   To the  contrary, the  BIA
_______







                                         -2-



























            decision  shows it considered petitioner's extensive criminal



            history  in   detail  in   determining  that  a   showing  of



            outstanding equities was required.



                 4.   There  is  no   record  support  for   petitioner's



            assertion that he was not notified  at that time of his  drug



            sentencing about  any immigration consequences that  he might



            face.    In any  event, petitioner conceded  the grounds  for



            deportation  before the  immigration  judge, and  he may  not



            challenge   the  validity  of   his  drug  conviction  during



            immigration proceedings.  See Gouveia, 980 F.2d at 817.
___ _______



                 5.   Finally,  we  reject  petitioner's   argument  that



            deportation,  a   civil  proceeding,  is  cruel  and  unusual



            punishment.  See Hernandez-Rivera v. INS, 630 F.2d 1352, 1356
___ ________________    ___



            (9th Cir. 1980).



                 There  being  no  substantial  question for  review,  we



            summarily affirm the decision of the BIA and deny and dismiss
______                             ____     _______



            the petition for review.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
___







































                                         -3-