Rioja v. Ashcroft
| Decision Date | 22 January 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-60212. Summary Calendar.,02-60212. Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 317 F.3d 514 |
| Parties | Juan RIOJA, also known as Juan Rioja-Claure, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, United States Attorney General, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Malvern Clopton Burnett, Law Office of Malvern C. Burnett, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner.
Shelley R. Goad, U.S. Dept. of Justice, John Ashcroft, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div.-App. Staff, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Jocelyn L. Wright, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div. Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. INS, Dist. Directors Office, Attn: Joe A. Aguilar, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Juan Rioja, also known as Juan Rioja-Claure, is a native of Bolivia who was admitted into the United State in June 1990 for a temporary period not to exceed January 4, 1991. Because Rioja remained beyond this temporary period, removal proceedings were instituted against him. Through retained counsel, Rioja admitted to all allegations against him in the removal proceedings and conceded removability. As relief from removal, Rioja sought political asylum, withholding of removal, and, in the alternative, voluntary departure. On July 27, 1999, after conducting a hearing, the Immigration Judge ("IJ") denied all of Rioja's requests for relief.
On August 26, 1999, Rioja filed a timely notice of appeal, in which Rioja specified that he would be submitting a separate written brief or statement. On September 25, 2000, Rioja's counsel filed a request for a new briefing schedule regarding the filing of the separate brief or statement, as well as a motion to withdraw as Rioja's counsel, which was filed at Rioja's request. Counsel's motion to withdraw was granted, and a new briefing schedule was issued requiring Rioja to submit his separate brief or statement by October 27, 2000. On February 27, 2002, the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") summarily dismissed Rioja's appeal because: (1) Rioja's notice of appeal form failed to apprise the BIA adequately of the bases for his appeal; and (2) Rioja had failed to submit a separate brief or statement as he had indicated he would on the notice of appeal form.
Rioja now petitions this court for review of the BIA's order summarily dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for asylum. We review a summary dismissal by the BIA for an abuse of discretion. See Medrano-Villatoro v. INS, 866 F.2d 132, 134 (5th Cir.1989); Townsend v. INS, 799 F.2d 179, 182 (5th Cir.1986). Summary dismissal is authorized if the appellant indicates on the notice of appeal form "that he or she will file a brief or statement in support of the appeal and, thereafter, does not file such brief or statement, or reasonably explain his or her failure to do so, within the time set for filing." 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D) (2001).1
Rioja cites to Medrano-Villatoro v. INS, 866 F.2d 132, 134 (5th Cir.1989), in support of his contention that he was not required to file a separate brief or statement. However, at the time Medrano-Villatoro was decided, a petitioner's failure to submit a separate brief or statement after indicating on the notice of appeal that such would be filed was not listed in 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d) as a basis for summary dismissal. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d) (1988). That basis for summary dismissal was added in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Argueta-Orellana v. Attorney Gen. United States
...("[§ 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E) ] explicitly gives the BIA authority to dismiss procedurally defective appeals."); Rioja v. Ashcroft , 317 F.3d 514, 515–16 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) ("The BIA was within its statutorily designated discretion to summarily dismiss Rioja's appeal after he indicated ......
-
Kokar v. Gonzales
...Respondent's Br. at 13. It urges this court to adopt the abuse of discretion standard employed by the Fifth Circuit in Rioja v. Ashcroft, 317 F.3d 514, 515 (5th Cir.2003), and more recently adopted by the Eleventh Circuit in Esponda v. United States Attorney General, 453 F.3d 1319, 1321 (11......
-
Awe v. Ashcroft
...brief, requested and received 30-day filing extension, and never filed brief nor explained why he had not); accord Rioja v. Ashcroft, 317 F.3d 514, 515-16 (5th Cir.2003). We do not see anything in the record here to suggest that the BIA inappropriately exercised its power in summarily dismi......
-
Lopez-Beltran v. Attorney Gen. of Am.
...warnings contained in the Form EOIR-26 and the briefing notice, no brief was filed after one was promised. See Rioja v. Ashcroft, 317 F.3d 514, 515-16 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E); A.R. at 64, 69.4 C.A. No. 20-2472 We also find that the BIA did not err by deny......