Opinion
No. 98-1609.
February 25, 1999.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS.
Before Boudin, Circuit Judge, Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge, and Shadur, Senior U.S. District Judge.
Stephen A. Lagana with whom Lagana Associates was on brief for petitioner.
Brenda M. O'Malley, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, with whom Karen Ann Hunold, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, were on brief for respondent.
Vito Stefano Provenzano, who entered the United States from Italy in 1983 as a non-immigrant visitor for pleasure, among other misconduct over-stayed; obtained unlawful employment; paid no income tax on his wages; purchased a counterfeit Temporary Resident Card; and, in January 1992, went back to Italy with it to attend to a family matter and returned on January 29 only to have the fraud discovered. He signed a sworn statement admitting the counterfeiting and, withdrawing his application for admission, returned to Italy.
Skipping some in-between matters, including marriage to a naturalized American citizen and unlawful entry from Canada, on February 2, 1993 Provenzano obtained an immigrant visa from an American Consular Officer in Naples by representing that, among other things, he had never been refused admission into the United States or sought entry through fraud or misrepresentation. On February 6 in Boston the INS refused admission and placed him into exclusion proceedings. After several hearings an immigration judge found him excludable, but granted a discretionary waiver of inadmissability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i). On an appeal by the INS the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed on August 1, 1997. Its six main reasons, plus incidentals, make one wonder at the earlier decision. We pass the subsequent proceedings that lead to our present question: whether the Board's denial to reopen that decision because of inadequate counsel should be reversed. The claim on appeal revolves around Provenzano's representations that he had never been refused entry or fraudulently sought entry.
It could be found that Provenzano had been advised by counsel that he could say he had never been refused entry in light of the fact that he had withdrawn his application before formal action and that he had acted reasonably in relying on that advice. There was no such claim or support for the serious misrepresentation that he had never sought entry through fraud or misrepresentation. The Board wrote a persuasive opinion on May 21, 1998. The appeal is meritless.
Affirmed.