Dume v. Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: 25-4239
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLAUDEL DUME; No. 25-4239 ANGELINE TELSAINT; Agency Nos. A220-577-873 J.A.D.T., A220-562-882 Petitioners, A220-562-883

v. MEMORANDUM*

TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted May 22, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: N.R. SMITH, BENNETT, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

Claudel Dume, Angeline Telsaint, and their son petition for review of a

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision summarily dismissing their appeal

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention

Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the

petition.

Dume, the only petitioner who testified at the petitioners’ hearing before the

IJ, alleged that he feared political persecution in Haiti based on his membership in

the League of the Alternative for the Haitian Progress and Emancipation. But the

IJ found that Dume’s testimony was not credible, noting apparent inconsistencies

between his hearing testimony and evidence in the record. The petitioners filed a

Notice of Appeal with the BIA, which indicated that they would file a separate

appellate brief. They never did so. So the BIA summarily dismissed the appeal

under C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), finding that it did not “meaningfully apprise”

the BIA of the “specific reasons” for the appeal.

We review the BIA’s summary dismissal of an appeal for abuse of

discretion. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005). Under 8

C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), the BIA can summarily dismiss an appeal if a

petitioner “fails to specify the reasons for the appeal.” This court has “held that

summary dismissal by the BIA is appropriate if an alien submits no separate

written brief or statement to the BIA and inadequately informs the BIA of ‘what

aspects of the IJ’s decision were allegedly incorrect and why.’” Martinez-Zelaya

2 25-4239 v. INS, 841 F.2d 294, 296 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774

F.2d 1364, 1364-65 (9th Cir. 1985)) (emphasis added).

“A noncitizen must ‘provide meaningful guidance to the BIA’ by informing

it of the issues contested on appeal; a ‘generalized and conclusory statement about

the proceedings before the IJ’ does not suffice.” Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, 14

F.4th 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 195 (9th

Cir. 1992). This specificity requirement is designed to “ensure that the BIA is

adequately apprised of the issues” raised by the appeal and “not left to search

through the record and speculate on what possible errors the petitioner claims.”

Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 820 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation modified). A

petitioner can satisfy the specificity requirement in the Notice of Appeal itself if he

fails to file a separate brief. Casas Chavez v. INS, 300 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.

2002).

Here, the petitioners’ Notice of Appeal does not cite specific factual or legal

support for its contentions that the IJ erred and that Dume’s testimony should have

been considered credible. The Notice of Appeal raises the issue of the IJ’s

credibility determination, but the Ninth Circuit has long found that it is not enough

for petitioners to merely identify “the issue in contention”—they must identify the

specific facts or law at issue and explain how the IJ erred. See Toquero, 956 F.2d

3 25-4239 at 196. This lack of explanation and specific support is fatal to the petitioners’

argument.

The petitioners failed to file an appellate brief, and their Notice of Appeal

did not adequately inform the BIA of the specific reasons for Petitioners’ appeal.

So the BIA did not abuse its discretion by summarily dismissing their appeal.

PETITION DENIED.1

1 The petitioners’ motion to stay removal is denied.

4 25-4239