Lauvera v. INS, 23 F.3d 394, 1st Cir. (1994)

23 F.
3d 394
NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished

opinions may be cited only in related cases.
Kawee LAUVERA, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD
OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS
No. 93-1921
United States Court of Appeals,

First Circuit.
April 29, 1994.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF

IMMIGRATION APPEALS
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.
B.I.A.
AFFIRMED.
Before Breyer, Chief Judge, Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
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. Sec. 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. Secs. 1158(a) & 1253(h), and
ordering him deported to Thailand. We affirm.
2
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. Sec. 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 ... 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."
Finally, petitioner is not eligible for a discretionary waiver of deportation

pursuant to section 212(c) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
5
Affirmed.

Lauvera v. INS, 23 F.3d 394, 1st Cir. (1994)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lauvera v. INS, 23 F.3d 394, 1st Cir. (1994)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lauvera v. INS, 23 F.3d 394, 1st Cir. (1994)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

23 F.

NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished

United States Court of Appeals,

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF

Pro-se petitioner Kawee Lauvera appeals an order of the Board of Immigration

Immigration and Nationality Act [INA], 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(a)(2)(A)(1),

There is no merit in petitioner's contention that, because he served a term of

Petitioner further contends that he is eligible for asylum or the withholding of

Finally, petitioner is not eligible for a discretionary waiver of deportation

status is an essential element for discretionary relief under Sec. 1182(c).").

You might also like