Harry v. INS ( 1994 )

USCA1 Opinion

          March 22, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


                                 ___________________


          No. 93-2004

            


                                   EDSEL R. HARRY,

                                     Petitioner,

                                          v.

                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

                                     Respondent.

                                  __________________

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

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ___________________

               Edsel R. Harry on brief pro se.
               ______________
               Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Robert Kendall,
               _______________                              _______________
          Jr., Assistant Director, and Karen Fletcher Torstenson, Attorney,
          __                           _________________________
          Office  of Immigration  Litigation Civil  Division, on  brief for
          respondent.

                                  __________________

                                  __________________





















                      Per Curiam.   We have carefully reviewed the record
                      __________

            and  conclude   that  the   decision  to  deny   relief  from

            deportation  fell  within  the  broad range  of  the  Board's

            permissible discretion.   See, e.g., Palacios-Torres  v. INS,
                                      ___  ___   _______________     ___

            995 F.2d 96, 99-101 (7th Cir. 1993).

                      The petition for review is denied.









































                                         -2-