738 Fed.Appx. 451 (9th Cir. 2018), 16-73333, Calzadilla-Tobar v. Sessions

Docket Nº:16-73333
Citation:738 Fed.Appx. 451
Party Name:Pedro CALZADILLA-TOBAR, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Attorney:J. Oscar Shaw, Esquire, Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner Todd J. Cochran, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Judge Panel:Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:September 18, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 451

738 Fed.Appx. 451 (9th Cir. 2018)

Pedro CALZADILLA-TOBAR, Petitioner,

v.

Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-73333

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

September 18, 2018

Submitted September 12, 2018 [*]

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

J. Oscar Shaw, Esquire, Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner

Todd J. Cochran, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. AXXX-XX3-088

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Page 452

MEMORANDUM[**]

Pedro Calzadilla-Tobar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") order summarily dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s decision to summarily dismiss an appeal, and review de novo due process claims and questions of law.

Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s decision to reject an untimely brief. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in summarily dismissing Calzadilla-Tobars appeal and rejecting his brief as untimely, where he indicated on his notice of appeal that a separate written brief would be filed but failed to timely file a brief or sufficiently explain his failure to do so, and his notice of appeal lacked sufficient specificity regarding the grounds for appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E), 1003.3(c)(1); Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1013 (BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by denying an untimely brief under a regulation indicating that...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP