USCA1 Opinion

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION   NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-1609



                     VITO STEFANO PROVENZANO,



                           Petitioner,



                                v.



             IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,



                           Respondent.









                 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.









February 25, 1999







      Per Curiam.  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.