Reyes-Mendoza v. I.N.S., REYES-MENDOZ
| Decision Date | 23 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | P,No. 84-7712,REYES-MENDOZ,84-7712 |
| Citation | 774 F.2d 1364 |
| Parties | Juan Carlosetitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Gary Silbiger, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
Lawrence Chamblee, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before CANBY, BEEZER, and HALL, Circuit Judges.
In August 1983 an Immigration Judge (IJ) found petitioner Juan Carlos Reyes-Mendoza deportable, denied Reyes' motion for suspension of deportation, and granted Reyes voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily dismissed his appeal. We affirm.
Following the IJ's oral decision, Reyes, through his attorney, appealed to the BIA using Form I-290A (Notice of Appeal). 1 In response to the request on the Form that he "[b]riefly, state reasons for this appeal," Reyes' counsel wrote "Wrongful denial of suspension of deportation." Below, he filled in blanks provided by the Form indicating: "I DO desire oral argument before the [BIA]" and "I AM filing a separate written brief or statement."
However, despite two extensions of time, no such separate written brief or statement was submitted to the BIA. The BIA therefore summarily dismissed the appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.1(d)(1-a)(i) for failure to specify sufficiently the basis for appeal. We affirm. The six-word statement on the Form was inadequate to inform the BIA of what aspects of the IJ's decision were allegedly incorrect and why. See Matter of Holquin, 13 I & N Dec. 423, 425-26 (BIA 1969). Summary dismissal was therefore appropriate. See Santana-Figueroa v. I. & N.S., 644 F.2d 1354, 1357 n. 9 (9th Cir.1981).
AFFIRMED.
1 Reyes' attorney, Gary Silbinger, signed the Form. We assume that he also prepared the Form.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alleyne v. U.S. I.N.S.
...of appeal to Board failed to state specific grounds of appeal and no brief filed, summary dismissal appropriate); Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 1364, 1364-65 (9th Cir.1985) (where six word statement of reasons in notice of appeal to Board failed to specify grounds for appeal and no brief f......
-
Ray v. Gonzales
...when it "`inform[s] the BIA of what aspects of the IJ's decision were allegedly incorrect and why.'") (quoting Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 1364, 1365 (9th Cir. 1985)). We are not in a position to make that ...
-
Athehortua-Vanegas v. I.N.S., ATHEHORTUA-VANEGA
...v. INS, 841 F.2d 294, 295-96 (9th Cir.1988); Bonne-Annee v. INS, 810 F.2d 1077, 1078 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam); Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 1364, 1364-65 (9th Cir.1985). Petitioner's conclusory broadside was entirely unenlightening, offering neither substance nor direction. As in Loza......
-
Casas-Chavez v. I.N.S.
...inadequately informs the BIA of `what aspects of the IJ's decision were allegedly incorrect and why.'") (citing Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 1364, 1364-65 (9th Cir.1985)) (emphasis added). Thus, there is an underlying assumption in the regulation that both requirements need not be satisfi......