Nenuz v. INS

USCA1 Opinion

          March 29, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


        No. 94-1906 

                                     FELIX NUNEZ,

                                     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.
______________

                                 ____________________

            Felix Nunez on brief pro se.
___________
            Frank W. Hunger,  Assistant Attorney General, Stewart Deutsch  and
_______________                               _______________
        Donald E.  Keener, Attorneys, Office of  Immigration Litigation, Civil
_________________
        Division, U.S. Department of Justice, on brief for respondent.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________























                 Per Curiam.   Petitioner Felix Nunez  seeks review of  a
__________

            decision  of the  Board of  Immigration Appeals  upholding an

            Immigration  Judge's  order  that   he  be  deported  to  the

            Dominican  Republic.     Assuming  arguendo  that   appellate
________

            jurisdiction  exists  with  regard to  his  prematurely filed

            petition,  see, e.g., In re Villa  Marina Yacht Harbor, Inc.,
___  ____  ______________________________________

            984 F.2d 546,  548 n.2 (1st Cir. 1993),  we deny the petition

            for review and enforce the order of deportation.  

                 As the Immigration Judge correctly found, petitioner was

            ineligible to apply for a discretionary waiver under   212(c)

            of the Immigration  and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.    1182(c),

            for two  separate reasons.  Petitioner  lacked (and continues

            to   lack)  the   "seven   consecutive   years"  of   "lawful

            unrelinquished domicile" that are a statutory prerequisite to

            such relief.   See, e.g., Goncalves  v. INS, 6 F.3d  830, 834
___  ____  _________     ___

            (1st Cir.  1993)  (seven-year clock  "stop[s]  ticking"  once

            Board upholds deportation order).   As well,   212(c)  relief

            is unavailable to an  alien who is deportable for  a firearms

            offense.  See, e.g.,  Campos v. INS, 961  F.2d 309 (1st  Cir.
___  ____   ______    ___

            1992).  

                 In turn, petitioner satisfied  none of the prerequisites

            for an  adjustment of  status under    245(a)  of the  Act, 8

            U.S.C.    1255(a).  It  suffices to note in  this regard that

            his drug convictions rendered  him inadmissible to the United

            States, see,  e.g., Jenkins v. INS,  32 F.3d 11, 15  (2d Cir.
___   ____  _______    ___



















            1994),  and therefore  ineligible for    245(a)  relief, see,
___

            e.g., Rodrigues v. INS, 994 F.2d 32, 33 (1st Cir. 1993).  And
____  _________    ___

            again because  of petitioner's failure to  satisfy   212(c)'s

            seven-year  requirement,  the   form  of  concurrent   relief

            described in In re Gabryelsky, Int. Dec. 3213 (BIA 1993); see
________________                             ___

            also Snajder v. INS,  29 F.3d 1203, 1207-08 (7th  Cir. 1994),
____ _______    ___

            is not an available option.  

                 The petition  for  review is  denied  and the  order  of
________________________________________________________

            deportation is enforced.
_______________________



































                                         -3-