April 29, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ___________________


          No. 93-1921

            


                                    KAWEE LAUVERA,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

                                     Respondent.


                                  __________________


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

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ___________________

               Kawee Lauvera on brief pro se.
               _____________
               Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Robert Kendall,
               _______________                              _______________
          Jr.,  Assistant Director, and  Philemina McNeill Jones, Attorney,
          ___                            _______________________
          Office of  Immigration Litigation  Civil Division,  Department of
          Justice, on brief for respondent.



                                  __________________

                                  __________________



















                 Per Curiam.  Pro-se  petitioner Kawee Lauvera appeals an
                 __________

            order of the  Board of Immigration Appeals [BIA]  finding him

            deportable under  section 241(a)(2)(A)(i) of  the Immigration

            and Nationality  Act  [INA],  8  U.S.C.     1251(a)(2)(A)(1),

            denying  his   application  for  asylum  and  withholding  of

            deportation under  sections 208(a) and  243(h) of the  INA, 8

            U.S.C.     1158(a) &  1253(h), and  ordering him deported  to

            Thailand.  We affirm.

                 There  is  no  merit  in  petitioner's contention  that,

            because  he served a term of imprisonment of only six months,

            the BIA  erred  in finding  him  deportable for  having  been

            convicted of credit  card fraud.  First,  petitioner, who was

            then  represented by  counsel,  conceded  at his  deportation

            hearing  that  he  was  deportable   on  the  basis  of  this

            conviction.   Moreover, even if the  issue were not therefore

            waived,  any  alien  who  has  committed  a  crime  of  moral

            turpitude  and "is  sentenced to  confinement or  is confined
                            _____________________________

            therefor in a prison or correctional institution for one year

            or  longer"   is  deportable.    8  U.S.C.   1251(a)(2)(A)(1)

            (emphasis added).  Petitioner, who was sentenced to a term of

            imprisonment at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at

            Concord "not exceeding five years," is within the purview  of

            this provision.  See,  e.g., United States ex rel.  Sirtie v.
                             ___   ___   _____________________________

            Commissioner of Immigration, 6 F.2d 233, 234 (D.N.Y. 1925) (a
            ___________________________

            reformatory sentence to a term which  "shall not exceed . . .



                                         -2-















            three  years" was a three  year sentence for  purposes of the

            1917  Immigration Act);  United  States ex  rel. Paladino  v.
                                     ________________________________

            Commissioner of Immigration, 43 F.2d  821, 822 (2d Cir. 1930)
            ___________________________

            (similar); Petsche  v. Clingan, 273 F.2d 688,  691 (10th Cir.
                       _______     _______

            1960) (similar,  under the  1952 INA);  see also  Campbell v.
                                                    ___ ____  ________

            Commonwealth, 339 Mass. 695,  697 (1959) (under Massachusetts
            ____________

            law, the length  of sentence  for an indefinite  term is  its

            maximum term).

                 Petitioner further  contends  that he  is  eligible  for

            asylum or the  withholding of  deportation because  he has  a

            "well  founded fear of persecution" on account of his Chinese

            heritage if he is returned to Thailand.  Petitioner, however,

            admits that neither  he nor  has family, who  still lives  in

            Thailand, has  ever been  subject to  persecution.   The only

            evidence  for his  fear is  a statement,  in a  Department of

            State report, which  indicates that there  is in Thailand  "a

            tradition  of popular  resentment directed  against [Chinese]

            trading  and  financial  activities."     Not  only  is  this

            statement too generalized to support a  "well founded fear of

            persecution,"  see Khalaf v.  INS, 909 F.2d  589, 592-93 (1st
                           ___ ______     ___

            Cir. 1990),  but the  very report  relied upon  by petitioner

            finds  that  "[t]his resentment  has  never  provoked violent

            persecution and is dissipating as the Chinese are assimilated

            into Thai society."





                                         -3-















                 Finally, petitioner is not eligible  for a discretionary

            waiver  of deportation pursuant to section 212(c) of the INA,

            8 U.S.C.   1182(c).  Section 212(c) applies only to "[a]liens

            lawfully admitted for permanent residence."  See Michelson v.
                                                         ___ _________

            INS, 897 F.2d 465, 469 (10th Cir. 1990) ("Permanent residence
            ___

            status is an essential element for discretionary relief under

               1182(c).").  Petitioner, who  entered the United States as

            an nonimmigrant student in 1985, has presented no evidence to

            the BIA  or  to this  court  that  he ever  became  a  lawful

            permanent resident.

                 Affirmed.
                 ________































                                         -4-