May 25, 1994
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 94-1055 

                               ENRIQUE WILLIAMS CELIS,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

                                     Respondent.

                                 ____________________


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

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Selya and Cyr,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Richard  L.  Iandoli  and  Iandoli  &  Associates,  on  brief  for
            ____________________       ______________________
        petitioner.
            Frank W.  Hunger, Assistant  Attorney General,  Richard M.  Evans,
            ________________                                _________________
        Assistant  Director,  and  Joseph  F.  Ciolino,  Attorney,  Office  of
                                   ___________________
        Immigration Litigation, Department of Justice,  on Respondent's Motion
        to Lift Stay of Deportation.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________






















                      Per Curiam.  We grant the government's motion, lift
                      __________

            the stay  of deportation, and summarily  dismiss the petition

            for review for three reasons.

                      1.  The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) was  not

            required  to  believe  petitioner's late  proffered  claim of

            inability  to prepare for, or  proceed at, the  June 11, 1991

            hearing  because   of  an  earlier  heart   attack.    First,

            petitioner, a college graduate, indicated at the hearing only

            that   his  heart   attack   had  delayed   his  mailing   of

            documentation  "a  little."    Neither  in  response  to  the

            Immigration  and  Naturalization   Service's  argument   that

            petitioner had adequate time to  prepare and should be denied

            a continuance nor in his administrative appeal did petitioner

            claim  physical  distress  or  inability  to  concentrate  or

            prepare.  While petitioner now claims that he did not mention

            problems related to  his health because he did not appreciate

            their  relevance, the BIA  was not  required to  believe that

            explanation.   Second, the medical reports  did not establish

            that   petitioner's  heart   condition  precluded   him  from

            contacting a  lawyer, preparing for the  hearing, or thinking

            clearly during  the hearing.   Indeed,  according to  his own

            account, petitioner  had been active in  the months following

            the attack contacting every lawyer  on the list and obtaining

            documents.   Having  implicitly discounted  petitioner's late

            claim of  severe  disability,  the BIA  did  not  exceed  its



















            authority  in refusing  to excuse  claimant's lack  of candor

            during the June  11 hearing, in concluding petitioner  had an

            adequate  opportunity  to  obtain  counsel,  or  in   denying

            petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

                      2.    Petitioner  contends  the  Immigration  Judge

            (I.J.) should have inquired  further into petitioner's health

            and expressly considered the cardiac condition in determining

            whether to grant discretionary relief.  Regardless whether or

            not  the I.J.'s  inquiries were  adequate, the BIA  has since

            expressly  considered  petitioner's  medical   condition  and

            concluded  that adverse  factors (e.g.,  petitioner's serious
                                              ____

            trafficking  conviction  and  lack of  remorse)  outweigh any

            demonstrated  equities.   The  BIA's  determination was  well

            within its broad range of discretion.

                      3.  Petitioner failed to argue below that  8 C.F.R.

              242.1(c) was violated and therefore may not raise the issue

            now.  See Cabral de Faria v. INS, 13 F.3d 422 (1st Cir. 1993)
                  ___ _______________    ___

            (issues not raised before the Board may not be raised for the

            first time upon judicial review).

                      The  petition  for  judicial  review  is  summarily

            denied and this court's February  1, 1994 stay of deportation

            is vacated.  Loc. R. 27.1.









                                         -3-