USCA1 Opinion

          July 17, 1995

                                 [NOT FOR PUBICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 94-2158 



                                HECTOR ROLANDO ADAMES,



                                     Petitioner,



                                          v.



                       IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,



                                     Respondent.





                                 ____________________



                   ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE DECISION AND ORDER

                         OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS







                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Randy Olen on brief for petitioner.
            __________

            Frank  W.  Hunger,  Assistant  Attorney  General,  and  Ellen  Sue
            _________________                                       __________

        Shapiro, Attorney, Office  of Immigration Litigation, Civil  Division,
        _______

        United States Department of Justice, on brief for respondent.





                                 ____________________



                                 ____________________













































                      Per Curiam.   We have carefully reviewed the briefs
                      __________



            and the record.  We  see no basis to disturb  the immigration



            judge's denial of  a continuance or the  Board's dismissal of



            petitioner's appeal.   In moving for a  continuance one month



            after  he  had  entered an  appearance,  petitioner's counsel



            merely asserted  that he "suspect[ed] that  a post-conviction



            application would be based on the failure to give Immigration



            warnings."  He did  not explain the basis for  his suspicion.



            For  example, he did not indicate whether he had reviewed the



            state  court papers,  conferred with  trial counsel,  or even



            talked  with petitioner  to determine whether  petitioner had



            been aware of the possibility  of deportation when he entered



            his nolo  contendere plea.  We need not now decide under what



            circumstances, if  any, an  immigration judge should  grant a



            continuance in order to  allow a convicted alien to  pursue a



            collateral attack on his conviction.  We simply conclude that



            in view  of counsel's  meager showing, the  immigration judge



            did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance in this



            case.



                 The petition  for judicial  review is  summarily denied.



            Loc. R. 27.1.