
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-1058                               NABOR JESUS SANTA USUGA,                                     Petitioner,                                          v.                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,                                     Respondent.                                 ____________________                          ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER                         OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Frank M. Hunger, Assistant  Attorney General, Alexander H. Shapiro            _______________                               ____________________        and Robert Kendall, Jr., Attorneys, Office of Immigration  Litigation,            ___________________        Department of  Justice, Civil Division, on  Respondent's Opposition to        Stay of Deportation.                                 ____________________                                    April 13, 1995                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   We vacate  this court's  January 17,  1995                 __________            stay  of  deportation and  summarily  deny  the petition  for            judicial  review because  petitioner is  not entitled  to any            relief in this court.  Loc. R. 27.1.                 The  record  before  the   Board  fully  supported   the            deportation  order and  denial  of  relief from  deportation.            While petitioner now  claims that  he was not  warned of  the            immigration  consequences of admitting  sufficient facts, and            he argues that those  convictions are therefore invalid under            Mass.  G. L. ch. 278,   29D, see Commonwealth v. Mahadeo, 397                                         ___ _______________________            Mass. 314 (1986), petitioner  may not collaterally attack his            criminal   convictions   in   the  context   of   deportation            proceedings.  Gouveia v. INS, 980 F.2d 814 (1st Cir. 1992).                            ______________                 Petitioner's contention  that he has not  been convicted            of  a  "trafficking" offense  or  an  "aggravated felony"  is            incorrect  and  ignores  the  definitions of  those  terms.              United States v.  Rodriguez, 26  F.3d 4, 6  (1st Cir.  1994);            ___________________________            United States  v. Forbes,  16 F.3d  1294,  1300-01 (1st  Cir.            ________________________            1994); Amaral v. INS, 977 F.2d 33, 35-36 (1st Cir. 1992).                   _____________                 Nor  has petitioner shown  eligibility for discretionary            relief.  Michelson v. INS, 897 F.2d 465, 469 (10th Cir. 1990)                     ________________            (alien, who entered  as a visitor,  but remained longer  than            permitted,  was   not   "lawfully  admitted   for   permanent            residence"  and  therefore  was  not eligible  for     212(c)            relief).                                         -2-                 The petition for judicial review is summarily denied.                                         -3-
