USCA1 Opinion
March 6, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
____________________
No. 95-2048
JESUS A. HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Tereso Jesus Herndez-Aviles,
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.
______________
____________________
Raymond E. Gillespie on brief for petitioner.
____________________
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
_________________
Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, and Lorri L. Shealy, Attorney,
_________________ _______________
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, on brief for respondent.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Petitioner seeks review of the Board of
__________
Immigration Appeals' (Board) denial of his motion to reopen
deportation proceedings. We have carefully reviewed the
record and petitioner's arguments.
We will not direct the Board to reopen the proceedings
to consider petitioner's new evidence. Petitioner failed to
meet the basic requirement that he present material evidence
that was not available and could not have been discovered or
presented at the former hearing. 8 C.F.R. 3.2.
Petitioner's evidence was available to him and discoverable
by him at the time of the hearing.
Petitioner also failed to present a prima facie case
showing that he is presently entitled to an adjustment of
status. Accordingly, the Board properly declined to remand
the proceedings to allow petitioner to apply for such an
adjustment. I.N.S. v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992).
______ _______
The Board adequately explained its reasons for denying
discretionary relief, and we perceive no basis to disturb
that decision. Williams v. I.N.S., 773 F.2d 8, 9 (1st Cir.
________ ______
1985).
The petition for judicial review is denied. Loc.R.
______
27.1.
-2-
