Juan Carlos Reyes-Mendoza v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Ninth Circuit

Juan Carlos Reyes-Mendoza v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

774 F.2d 1364

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 1985

Docket84-7712

StatusPublished

Cited by68 cases

This text of 774 F.2d 1364 (Juan Carlos Reyes-Mendoza v. Immigration and Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Juan Carlos Reyes-Mendoza v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 774 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge:

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 “[bjriefly, 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 *1365 statement was submitted to the BIA. The BIA therefore summarily dismissed the appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge:

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 “[bjriefly, 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 *1365 statement was submitted to the BIA. The BIA therefore summarily dismissed the appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

774 F.2d 1364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juan-carlos-reyes-mendoza-v-immigration-and-naturalization-service-ca9-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack