
USCA1 Opinion

	




          October 19, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                                             ____________________        No. 95-1587                                    EBENEZER ALUKO,                                     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.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Louis B. Abilheira on brief for petitioner.            __________________            Frank  W. Hunger,  Assistant  Attorney,  General, Joan  E. Smiley,            ________________                                __               _        Senior Litigation Counsel, and Vernon Benet Miles, Attorney, Office of        _________________________      __________________        Immigration Litigation,  Civil  Division, Department  of  Justice,  on        brief for respondent.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  We  have carefully reviewed the record                      __________            and petitioner's arguments.                        We will not remand and direct the Board to consider            new evidence  because, so  far  as appears  from the  record,            petitioner  neither   promptly  notified  the  Board  of  his            marriage before  the Board  issued its decision  nor promptly            moved to reopen under  8 C.F.R.   3.8.   See Ramirez-Gonzalez                                                     ___ ________________            v. INS, 695 F.2d  1208, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 1983);  Martinez de               ___                                            ___________            Mendoza v. INS, 567 F.2d 1222, 1226 n.9 (3d Cir. 1977).            _______    ___                      The   Immigration   Judge   and  Board   adequately            explained their reasons for denying discretionary relief from            deportation.  We see no basis to disturb their decision.                      The petition  for judicial review is  denied.  Loc.                                                            ______            R. 27.1.
