DocketNumber： 96-1314
Filed Date： 9/27/1996
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/21/2015
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October 4, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-