June 4, 1996            [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                                     
                                 ____________________



        No. 95-1925



                            RODOLFO DE JESUS PINON-MACEO,



                                     Petitioner,



                                          v.



                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,



                                     Respondent.



                                                     
                                 ____________________





                          ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER



                         OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS



                                                     
                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,



                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                                     
                                 ____________________







             Herbert P. Sklar for petitioner.
             ________________

             James  A.  Hunolt, Attorney,  Office  of  Immigration Litigation,
             _________________

        Civil  Division, Department  of  Justice, with  whom Frank  W. Hunger,
                                                             ________________

        Assistant  Attorney  General, Civil  Division,  and  David V.  Bernal,
                                                             ________________

        Senior  Litigation   Counsel,  Civil  Division,  were   on  brief  for

        respondent.







                                                     
                                 ____________________





                                                     
                                 ____________________

































                    Per Curiam.  Rodolfo de Jesus Pinon-Maceo petitions for
                    Per Curiam
                    __________



          review  of a  discretionary  Board of  Immigration Appeals  order



          denying his motion to reopen an earlier deportation hearing.  The



          motion to reopen indicated no abuse of discretion by the BIA, see
                                                                        ___



          INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992), but simply attempted to
          ___    _______



          relitigate the merits of  the original claim for asylum,  but see
                                                                    ___ ___



          Caruncho v.  INS, 68 F.3d 356, 359-62 (9th Cir. 1995), viz., that
          ________     ___                                       ____



          deportation  to  Cuba  would   subject  him  to  prosecution  and



          imprisonment for  having jumped  a Cuban  vessel while  docked in



          Canada.   The  BIA  upheld  an  Immigration Judge's  ruling  that



          petitioner  was   ineligible,  either  for  asylum   or  for  the



          withholding  of  deportation,  since  his  asserted  fears   were



          predicated on possible prosecution, not persecution.  



                    A motion to reopen seeks permissive relief,  see id. at
                                                                 ___ __



          361,  which  may  be  denied  solely  because  it  introduces  no



          "'previously unavailable, material evidence . . . .'"  Id. at 360
                                                                 ___



          (quoting Doherty,  502 U.S. at 323),  as was the case  here.  The
                   _______



          motion  to reopen  alleged that  petitioner would  be exposed  to



          imprisonment  or death for having  jumped ship.   It claimed that



          the situation had been worsened by a more restrictive immigration



          policy  announced on  May  2, 1995,  pertaining  to future  Cuban



          "rafters."    The BIA  concluded  that petitioner  had  failed to



          demonstrate  that the  motion  to reopen  was  based on  any  new



          evidence,  the immigration  policy on  "rafters" notwithstanding.



          We agree.  









                                          2



























                    Petitioner  has not  shown,  either before  the BIA  or



          here, that the new immigration policy was material to his request
                                                    ________



          for  asylum  or  withholding  deportation.    At  most,  the  new



          immigration  policy allegedly  exacerbated petitioner's  fears of



          "prosecution" for having jumped ship  in violation of Cuban  law,



          as  distinguished from  a legitimate  fear of "persecution."   As



          there was  no error in the  BIA determination that  the claim for



          asylum was unfounded because an "alien's prosecution and possible



          imprisonment for civil or criminal  violations pursuant to law do



          not constitute  persecution," there  can  have been  no abuse  of



          discretion.  See id.
                       ___ __



                    The petition for review is denied.
                    The petition for review is denied.
                    _________________________________





























































                                          3