USCA1 Opinion

          June 20, 1995

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT









                                 ____________________





        No. 94-2269



                                LEROY GEORGE BENNETT,



                                     Petitioner,



                                          v.



                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,



                                     Respondent.





                                 ____________________



                         ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER 



                         OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            John S. Pomeroy on brief for petitioner.
            _______________

            Frank W.  Hunger,  Assistant  Attorney  General,  Civil  Division,
            ________________

        Emily  Anne  Radford   &  Charles  E.  Pazar,  Attorneys,   Office  of
        ____________________________________________

        Immigration Litigation Civil Division, on brief for respondent.





                                 ____________________



                                 ____________________









































                 Per  Curiam.    Petitioner  Leroy  Bennett  appeals  the
                 ___________



            decision  of the  Board  of Immigration  Appeals denying  him



            discretionary relief  from deportation.  8  U.S.C.   1182(c).



            We  have  reviewed   the  administrative  record   carefully,



            including  the decision  of  the immigration  judge, and  the



            briefs of the parties.   We find no evidence  that petitioner



            received anything other  than a full and impartial hearing in



            this  case.  Moreover,  the record supports  the finding that



            petitioner   exhibited  a   "pattern   of  serious   criminal



            misconduct"  over a period of  several years, as  well as the



            finding  that petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing



            that he had been rehabilitated.  



                 The immigration  judge made specific findings  as to the



            positive and negative  factors to be considered  in this case



            and explained  how he reached  his decision.   Petitioner has



            not shown  that that  decision was  "made without a  rational



            explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies,



            or rested on an  impermissible basis."  Williams v.  INS, 773
                                                    ________     ___



            F.2d  8, 9 (1st Cir.  1985) (explaining grounds  on which INS



            decision may be overturned).   We find no abuse of discretion



            in the  Board's ultimate  decision that  discretionary relief



            was not  warranted.  See  Gouveia v.  INS, 980 F.2d  814, 819
                                 ___  _______     ___



            (1st Cir. 1992)  (refusing to "second-guess the  Board on the



            manner in which it weights different factors when arriving at



            its ultimate decision").





































                 Affirmed.
                 ________







































































































                                         -3-