May 3, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 95-2239





                      GERMAN ARANGO-TAMAYO, A/K/A GERMAN ARANGO,



                                     Petitioner,



                                          v.



                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,



                                     Respondent.



                                 ____________________





                              ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF

                      ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS



                                 ____________________





                                        Before



                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Mark L. Galvin on brief for petitioner.
            ______________

            Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Ellen Sue Shapiro,
            _______________                              _________________

        Senior Litigation Counsel, and John T. Lynch, Jr., Attorney, Office of
                                       __________________

        Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, on

        brief for respondent.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________











                      Per  Curiam.    The   petitioner-appellant,  German
                      ___________





























            Arango-Tamayo,  appeals  from  an   order  of  the  Board  of



            Immigration  Appeals (Board) denying  his request  for relief



            from deportation under Section  212(c) of the Immigration and



            Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.   1182(c).  After careful review of



            the parties' briefs and  the record, we affirm, substantially



            for  the reasons  given  in the  Immigration Judge's  opinion



            dated September 8, 1992,  which was affirmed by the  Board in



            its opinion  dated  October 17,  1995.   The  petitioner  has



            failed   to  demonstrate  that   the  denial  was  arbitrary,



            capricious,  or  an  abuse of  discretion.    See Gouveia  v.
                                                          ___ _______



            I.N.S., 980 F.2d 814,  818 (1st Cir. 1992).   Furthermore, he
            ______



            may not assign  as error  the Board's failure  to remand  for



            additional evidence, as  he did not  seek such relief  below.



            See Ravindran v. I.N.S., 976 F.2d 754, 761 (1st Cir. 1992).
            ___ _________    ______



                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                      ________















































                                         -3-