
USCA1 Opinion

	




          April 29, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 93-1921                                                KAWEE LAUVERA,                                     Petitioner,                                          v.                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,                                     Respondent.                                  __________________                         PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF                           THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS                                 ___________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ___________________               Kawee Lauvera on brief pro se.               _____________               Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Robert Kendall,               _______________                              _______________          Jr.,  Assistant Director, and  Philemina McNeill Jones, Attorney,          ___                            _______________________          Office of  Immigration Litigation  Civil Division,  Department of          Justice, on brief for respondent.                                  __________________                                  __________________                 Per Curiam.  Pro-se  petitioner Kawee Lauvera appeals an                 __________            order of the  Board of Immigration Appeals [BIA]  finding him            deportable under  section 241(a)(2)(A)(i) of  the Immigration            and Nationality  Act  [INA],  8  U.S.C.     1251(a)(2)(A)(1),            denying  his   application  for  asylum  and  withholding  of            deportation under  sections 208(a) and  243(h) of the  INA, 8            U.S.C.     1158(a) &  1253(h), and  ordering him deported  to            Thailand.  We affirm.                 There  is  no  merit  in  petitioner's contention  that,            because  he served a term of imprisonment of only six months,            the BIA  erred  in finding  him  deportable for  having  been            convicted of credit  card fraud.  First,  petitioner, who was            then  represented by  counsel,  conceded  at his  deportation            hearing  that  he  was  deportable   on  the  basis  of  this            conviction.   Moreover, even if the  issue were not therefore            waived,  any  alien  who  has  committed  a  crime  of  moral            turpitude  and "is  sentenced to  confinement or  is confined                            _____________________________            therefor in a prison or correctional institution for one year            or  longer"   is  deportable.    8  U.S.C.   1251(a)(2)(A)(1)            (emphasis added).  Petitioner, who was sentenced to a term of            imprisonment at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at            Concord "not exceeding five years," is within the purview  of            this provision.  See,  e.g., United States ex rel.  Sirtie v.                             ___   ___   _____________________________            Commissioner of Immigration, 6 F.2d 233, 234 (D.N.Y. 1925) (a            ___________________________            reformatory sentence to a term which  "shall not exceed . . .                                         -2-            three  years" was a three  year sentence for  purposes of the            1917  Immigration Act);  United  States ex  rel. Paladino  v.                                     ________________________________            Commissioner of Immigration, 43 F.2d  821, 822 (2d Cir. 1930)            ___________________________            (similar); Petsche  v. Clingan, 273 F.2d 688,  691 (10th Cir.                       _______     _______            1960) (similar,  under the  1952 INA);  see also  Campbell v.                                                    ___ ____  ________            Commonwealth, 339 Mass. 695,  697 (1959) (under Massachusetts            ____________            law, the length  of sentence  for an indefinite  term is  its            maximum term).                 Petitioner further  contends  that he  is  eligible  for            asylum or the  withholding of  deportation because  he has  a            "well  founded fear of persecution" on account of his Chinese            heritage if he is returned to Thailand.  Petitioner, however,            admits that neither  he nor  has family, who  still lives  in            Thailand, has  ever been  subject to  persecution.   The only            evidence  for his  fear is  a statement,  in a  Department of            State report, which  indicates that there  is in Thailand  "a            tradition  of popular  resentment directed  against [Chinese]            trading  and  financial  activities."     Not  only  is  this            statement too generalized to support a  "well founded fear of            persecution,"  see Khalaf v.  INS, 909 F.2d  589, 592-93 (1st                           ___ ______     ___            Cir. 1990),  but the  very report  relied upon  by petitioner            finds  that  "[t]his resentment  has  never  provoked violent            persecution and is dissipating as the Chinese are assimilated            into Thai society."                                         -3-                 Finally, petitioner is not eligible  for a discretionary            waiver  of deportation pursuant to section 212(c) of the INA,            8 U.S.C.   1182(c).  Section 212(c) applies only to "[a]liens            lawfully admitted for permanent residence."  See Michelson v.                                                         ___ _________            INS, 897 F.2d 465, 469 (10th Cir. 1990) ("Permanent residence            ___            status is an essential element for discretionary relief under               1182(c).").  Petitioner, who  entered the United States as            an nonimmigrant student in 1985, has presented no evidence to            the BIA  or  to this  court  that  he ever  became  a  lawful            permanent resident.                 Affirmed.                 ________                                         -4-
