Chung Phan v. Pamela Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 23, 2025
• Docket: 24-1567
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1567 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/23/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1567

CHUNG VAN PHAN,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: February 3, 2025 Decided: June 23, 2025

Before HEYTENS and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Hoa V. Tran, HOA VAN TRAN, APLC, Garden Grove, California, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Sabatino F. Leo, Assistant Director, Corey L. Farrell, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1567 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/23/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Chung Van Phan petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) summarily dismissing his appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E) (2021). For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for

review.

The Board may summarily dismiss any appeal in which the appellant “fails to

specify the reasons for the appeal on Form EOIR-26 or Form EOIR-29 (Notices of Appeal)

or other document filed therewith;” or in which the appellant indicates “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. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E). Additionally, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(b) (2021) provides:

Statement of the basis of appeal. The party taking the appeal must identify the reasons for the appeal in the Notice of Appeal (Form EOIR-26 or Form EOIR-29) or in any attachments thereto, in order to avoid summary dismissal pursuant to § 1003.1(d)(2)(i). The statement must specifically identify the findings of fact, the conclusions of law, or both, that are being challenged. If a question of law is presented, supporting authority must be cited. If the dispute is over the findings of fact, the specific facts contested must be identified. Where the appeal concerns discretionary relief, the appellant must state whether the alleged error relates to statutory grounds of eligibility or to the exercise of discretion and must identify the specific factual and legal finding or findings that are being challenged. Id.

Upon review, we conclude that the Board was justified in summarily dismissing

Phan’s appeal and that no abuse of discretion occurred. See Esponda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,

453 F.3d 1319, 1321 (11th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of review). Phan received

proper notice of his obligation to reasonably explain his failure to file a timely brief and to

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1567 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/23/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

apprise the Board of the bases for his appeal, and he was warned that failure to do so could

result in the summary dismissal of the appeal. Despite this warning, Phan failed to provide

specifics sufficient to justify his failure to meet the deadline. Further, his notice of appeal

did not challenge the Immigration Judge’s specific factual findings or raise any legal

challenges with supporting authority. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(b).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED