
USCA1 Opinion

	




          May 3, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 95-2239                      GERMAN ARANGO-TAMAYO, A/K/A GERMAN ARANGO,                                     Petitioner,                                          v.                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,                                     Respondent.                                 ____________________                              ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF                      ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Mark L. Galvin on brief for petitioner.            ______________            Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Ellen Sue Shapiro,            _______________                              _________________        Senior Litigation Counsel, and John T. Lynch, Jr., Attorney, Office of                                       __________________        Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, on        brief for respondent.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.    The   petitioner-appellant,  German                      ___________            Arango-Tamayo,  appeals  from  an   order  of  the  Board  of            Immigration  Appeals (Board) denying  his request  for relief            from deportation under Section  212(c) of the Immigration and            Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.   1182(c).  After careful review of            the parties' briefs and  the record, we affirm, substantially            for  the reasons  given  in the  Immigration Judge's  opinion            dated September 8, 1992,  which was affirmed by the  Board in            its opinion  dated  October 17,  1995.   The  petitioner  has            failed   to  demonstrate  that   the  denial  was  arbitrary,            capricious,  or  an  abuse of  discretion.    See Gouveia  v.                                                          ___ _______            I.N.S., 980 F.2d 814,  818 (1st Cir. 1992).   Furthermore, he            ______            may not assign  as error  the Board's failure  to remand  for            additional evidence, as  he did not  seek such relief  below.            See Ravindran v. I.N.S., 976 F.2d 754, 761 (1st Cir. 1992).            ___ _________    ______                      Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.                      ________                                         -3-
