
USCA1 Opinion

	




          March 30, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-2128                                 ANTHONY DALE CLARKE,                                     Petitioner,                                          v.                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,                                     Respondent.                                 ____________________                          ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER                         OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Herbert P. Sklar on brief for petitioner.            ________________            Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Robert Kendall,  Jr.,            _______________                              ____________________        Assistant  Director, and  Alexander  H. Shaprio,  Attorney, Office  of                                  _____________________        Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondent.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   All  that is  before  this court  for                      __________            review  is  the  board's  October  19,  1994  order   denying            petitioner's perfunctory September 1994 motion to reopen.  We            review for abuse  of discretion.  INS v. Doherty,  112 S. Ct.                                              ______________            719, 724-25 (1992);  Gando-Coello v. INS,  888 F.2d 197,  199                                 ___________________            (1st Cir. 1989).    Petitioner's  motion  to  reopen did  not            comply with the requirements for reopening.  8 C.F.R.    3.2,            3.8.  To the  extent petitioner was attempting to  revive his            abandoned  application  for discretionary  relief, petitioner            did  not adequately explain why  he and his  attorney had not            appeared for the February 20, 1991  hearing and therefore did            not  show why he should be given  another chance to apply for            discretionary  relief.    8 C.F.R.     3.2.    To the  extent            petitioner wanted  to present new evidence,  he failed timely            to comply with   3.8's requirement to "state the new facts to            be proved  at  the  reopened  hearing"  and  file  supporting            affidavits or  other evidentiary  material.   The  board  was            entitled to enforce its procedural requirements and hence did            not abuse its  discretion in denying  petitioner's motion  to            reopen.                 The petition  for judicial  review is summarily  denied.            Loc. R. 27.1.
