Clavel-Vazquez v. INS ( 1998 )

USCA1 Opinion

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION   NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-1203



                   JOSE AMILCAR CLAVEL-VASQUEZ,



                           Petitioner,



                                v.



             IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,



                           Respondent.









                     PETITION FOR REVIEW OF

          AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS









                             Before



                      Lipez, Circuit Judge,

           Coffin and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge.









     Alan M. Tow with whom Linda A. Cristello was on brief for

petitioner.

     Joseph F. Ciolino, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation,

with whom Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, and Carl H.

McIntyre, Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel, were on brief for

respondent.











October 26, 1998













  Per curiam. Petitioner Clavel-Vasquez seeks reversal of

an order of deportation issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA).  We may reverse the BIA's determination that petitioner is

deportable only if he can demonstrate that the evidence he

presented was "so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could

fail to find" that he was eligible for asylum or withholding of

deportation.  INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 484 (1992); seealso id. at 481 n.1; Civil v. INS, 140 F.3d 52, 54 (lst Cir. 1998);

Ravindran v. INS, 976 F.2d 754, 758 (lst Cir. 1992).  Petitioner

has not met this burden.  The record simply does not present a

sufficiently compelling nexus between petitioner's fear of

persecution and any political opinion.  Indeed, having carefully

reviewed the record and relevant law, we find ourselves in full

agreement with the BIA's decision, which in turn relied upon the

reasons stated by the Immigration Judge.  We see no need to repeat

here their thoughtful discussions.  See Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8

(lst Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a reviewing tribunal decides that the facts

and evaluative judgments prescinding from them have been adequately

confronted and correctly resolved by a trial judge or hearing

officer, then the tribunal is free simply to adopt those findings"

so long as the opinion or order reflects individualized attention

to the case.).

  The petition for review is denied and dismissed.