Toquero v. I.N.S., 90-70439

• Citation: 956 F.2d 193
• Decision Date: 31 January 1992
• Docket Number: No. 90-70439,90-70439
• Parties: Marcelino TOQUERO, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Page 193

956 F.2d 193

Marcelino TOQUERO, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 90-70439.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 13, 1991.

Decided Jan. 31, 1992.

Ronald T. Oldenburg, Honolulu, Hawaii, for petitioner.

Robert Kendall, Jr., Asst. Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Before: HUG, HALL and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge:

Petitioner Marcelino Toquero requests review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) summary dismissal of his appeal from a deportation order because Petitioner's Notice of Appeal did not meaningfully state the reasons for appeal. Petitioner alleges that the Notice was sufficiently specific, and that, in any event, the dismissal procedures used in this case did not comport with due process. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1105a(a) ¹ and 1105a(c). We affirm.

I

Petitioner, a native of the Philippines, was issued a second-preference immigrant visa as the unmarried son of a United States citizen in October, 1981. Because he was married at the time of entry, Petitioner did not qualify for the visa. In 1988, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") instituted deportation proceedings against him. At the deportation hearing before the Immigration Judge ("IJ"), Petitioner conceded deportability, arguing instead that the IJ should suspend deportation pursuant to § 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1). Suspension is appropriate under § 244(a)(1) if the alien is of good moral character, has been in the United States for the last seven years, and would suffer extreme hardship as a result of deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1). The IJ denied suspension because Petitioner did not demonstrate extreme hardship.

Through counsel, Petitioner filed a timely Notice of Appeal (Form I-290A) with the BIA, requesting oral argument and indicating an intention to file an optional brief in support of his appeal within thirty days of receiving the trial transcript. In response to the form's directive to "briefly" state the reasons for appeal, Petitioner wrote: "The Immigration Judge erred in denying Respondent's application for suspension as the evidence presented established that Respondent would suffer extreme hardship if deported to the Philippines."

The trial transcript was sent on May 31, 1990. Petitioner's counsel failed to file a brief, and on July 17, 1990, the government submitted a brief requesting summary dismissal because the Notice of Appeal was inadequate. Despite awareness of the pending motion, counsel again failed to file a brief explaining why the Notice was adequate or delineating the reasons for appeal. The BIA summarily dismissed Petitioner's appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i). ² In its Order, the BIA stated: "No brief in support of [Toquero's] appeal has been filed. Moreover, counsel for [Toquero] has failed to state specific reasons for the appeal in the Notice of Appeal (Form I-290A) and therefore has failed to identify in a meaningful manner the basis of the ... appeal."

Counsel for Petitioner filed a timely petition for review with this court. He advances two arguments: (1) that Petitioner's Notice of Appeal was sufficiently specific, and (2) that even if the Notice was inadequate, the procedures used in this case violated procedural due process. We address each contention in turn.

II

Although our Circuit has "not clearly articulated the standard for reviewing BIA summary dismissal of appeals ..., we have analyzed whether such summary dismissals are 'appropriate.' " Martinez-Zelaya v. I.N.S., 841 F.2d 294, 295 (9th Cir.1988) (citations omitted). We do not need to decide the appropriate standard of review, however, because even under a de novo review the BIA's decision would withstand scrutiny.

A

The BIA has interpreted § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i) to contain rather strict specificity requirements:

It is ... insufficient to merely assert that the immigration judge improperly found that deportability had been established or denied.... Where eligibility for discretionary relief is at issue, it should be stated whether the error relates to grounds of statutory eligibility or to the exercise of discretion. Furthermore, it should be clear whether the alleged impropriety in the decision lies with the immigration judge's interpretation of the facts or his application of legal standards. Where a question of law is presented, supporting authority should be included, and where the dispute is on the facts, there should be a discussion of the particular details contested.

Matter of Valencia, Interim Decision No. 3006, 2-3 (BIA 1986) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).

In this case, the IJ found that although Petitioner satisfied two of the three elements required to obtain a suspension of deportation under § 244(a)(1), the evidence did not establish the third element, extreme hardship. Petitioner argues that because his Notice of Appeal alleged that the IJ erred with regard to this third element, the Notice could not have been more specific.

Petitioner's argument is unpersuasive in light of the case law in this and other circuits. The only Ninth Circuit case directly addressing the specificity requirement under § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i) is Reyes-Mendoza v. I.N.S., 774 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir.1985). ³ In that case, we approved the BIA's strict interpretation, stating that the Notice of Appeal must "inform the BIA of what aspects of the IJ's decision were allegedly incorrect and why." Reyes-Mendoza, 774 F.2d at 1365 (citing Matter of Holquin, 13 I. & N. Dec. 423, 425-26 (BIA 1969)). We affirmed the BIA's summary dismissal because the Notice of Appeal merely stated: "Wrongful denial of suspension of deportation." Reyes-Mendoza, 774 F.2d at 1364.

While the Notice of Appeal in this case is more specific than the one in Reyes-Mendoza, it still does not satisfy the regulation's requirements. Glaringly absent is "a discussion of the particular details contested." Matter of Valencia, at 3. Rather than describing how the evidence established extreme hardship and why the IJ erred, Petitioner makes a generalized and conclusory statement about the proceedings before the IJ. See Bonne-Annee v. I.N.S., 810 F.2d 1077, 1078 (11th Cir.1987) (Notice inadequate when it stated that the IJ "was incorrect in finding me deportable," "was incorrect in denying my political asylum application," and "was wrong in denying my motion for a continuance and my motion for Interrogatory [sic] "). Such a statement does not provide meaningful guidance to the BIA. Because it is unclear which pieces of evidence are in contention, "the Board was left guessing at how and why petitioner thought the court had erred." Lozada v. I.N.S., 857 F.2d 10, 13 (1st Cir.1988) (Notice inadequate when it stated that IJ's decision was "against the weight of the evidence," "against the law controlling the case," and "arbitrary and capricious").

The Fifth Circuit reached the same conclusion in a case with strikingly similar facts. In Townsend v. I.N.S., 799 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.1986), the court affirmed the BIA's summary dismissal because the Notice merely stated that the "male respondent has sufficiently established his 'well founded fear of persecution' according to present case law." Id. at 181-82. In the court's view, "this was inadequate under the Board's established construction of its regulation." Id. at 182. The court also found it important that the petitioner did not take advantage of the opportunity to file a supporting brief. Id.

We conclude that Petitioner's Notice of Appeal did not satisfy the regulation's rigorous requirements. While the Notice correctly focused on the issue in contention, it did not indicate which facts were in contention and how the IJ misinterpreted the evidence. Like Townsend, we also find it significant that Petitioner failed to file a supporting brief after indicating an intention to do so.

B

We now turn to Petitioner's due process claim. Although Petitioner's characterization of the issue is not a model of clarity, we interpret his argument to challenge the general procedures used by the BIA to summarily dismiss an appeal under § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i). ⁴

Starting with bedrock, it is clear that deportation proceedings must afford procedural due process. Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U.S. 86, 100, 23 S.Ct. 611, 614, 47 L.Ed. 721 (1903); Lozada, 857 F.2d at 13 ("petitioners are entitled to due process" even though deportation proceedings are civil and not criminal); Magallanes-Damian v. I.N.S., 783 F.2d 931, 933 (9th Cir.1986) (same). While due process requires the opportunity to be heard, it is "not necessarily an opportunity upon a regular, set occasion, and according to the forms of judicial procedure, but one that will secure the prompt, vigorous action contemplated by Congress, and at the same time be appropriate to the nature of the case upon which such officers are required to act." Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U.S. at 101, 23 S.Ct. at 614. Thus, to survive judicial scrutiny, the BIA's procedures in summarily dismissing appeals must not be so arbitrary as to undermine the principles of due process. See id. ("No such arbitrary power can exist where the principles involved in due process of law are recognized.").

Contrary to Petitioner's contention, this case does not turn solely on the propriety of BIA procedures. Rather, it involves an inquiry into the actions taken by Petitioner's counsel. In the Notice, counsel for Petitioner indicated an intention to file a supporting brief, yet failed to follow through with this intention. Counsel again failed to file a brief even after he received the government's brief arguing for dismissal on the basis that the Notice was not...