Matter of Valencia

• Decision Date: 14 February 1986
• Docket Number: A-24305559.,Interim Decision Number 3006
• Citation: 19 I&N Dec. 354
• Parties: MATTER OF VALENCIA. In Deportation Proceedings.
• Court: U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals

19 I&N Dec. 354

MATTER OF VALENCIA.

In Deportation Proceedings.

Interim Decision Number 3006

A-24305559.

Board of Immigration Appeals.

Decided by Board February 14, 1986.

Where the respondent presented a generalized statement on the Notice of Appeal (Form I-290A), failed to express the specific rationale for his conclusory assertions, filed no separate written brief, and did not seek oral argument to further explain the alleged error, his appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1a)(i) (1985) for failure to adequately specify the reasons for the appeal.

CHARGE:

Order: Act of 1952 — Sec. 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)] — Nonimmigrant — remained longer than permitted

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Louis Serterides, Esquire 152 Central Avenue Jersey City, New Jersey 07306

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: Teresita R. Guerrero General Attorney

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Dunne, Morris, and Vacca, Board Members

In a decision dated September 25, 1985, the immigration judge found the respondent deportable on his own admissions under section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2) (1982), as a nonimmigrant crewman who remained longer than permitted, and granted him voluntary departure in lieu of deportation. The respondent has appealed from that decision. The appeal will be summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i) (1985).

On his Notice of Appeal (Form I-290A), the respondent, through counsel, states the following as his reason for this appeal: "I respectfully submit that the hearing officer erred in that of the appellant [sic] burden of proving a well-founded fear of persecution in his native Nicaragua." The respondent also specified on the Notice of Appeal that he does not desire oral argument and that he is not filing a separate written brief in support of his appeal.

We are unable to determine from the respondent's stated reason for his appeal whether the error he alleges relates to the particular facts of his case, the law applied to them by the immigration judge, or both. By presenting only a generalized statement without filing a supporting brief to explain the specific aspects of the immigration judge's order that the respondent considers to be incorrect, he has failed to meaningfully identify the reasons for taking an appeal. In order to review the appeal, it would therefore be necessary for the Board to search through the record and speculate on what possible errors the respondent claims.

The regulations provide for summary dismissal of an appeal where the party concerned fails to specify the reasons for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i) (1985). In Matter of Holguin, 13 I&N Dec. 423 (BIA 1969), we noted that this regulation was designed to permit us to deal promptly with appeals where the reasons...