Lopez v. Ashcroft

Ninth Circuit

Lopez v. Ashcroft

72 F. App'x 681

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 15, 2003

DocketNo. 02-70751; Agency No. A73-960-491

StatusPublished

This text of 72 F. App'x 681 (Lopez v. Ashcroft) 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

Lopez v. Ashcroft, 72 F. App'x 681 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

German Albert Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary dismissal of his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for suspension of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), and we deny the petition for review.

[682]*682Lopez filed a Notice of Appeal (Form EOIR — 26) with the BIA and indicated on it that he would file a brief. Because he failed to file the brief, and also failed to set out adequate reasons for his appeal in his Notice of Appeal, the BIA summarily dismissed. Lopez did not raise the issue of the summary dismissal in his brief to this Court. Accordingly, we regard Lopez’s failure as a waiver of his right to challenge the BIA’s decision. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir. 1996).

We do not consider Lopez’s contentions regarding the IJ’s underlying decision because these issues were not first considered by the BIA. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

German Albert Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary dismissal of his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for suspension of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), and we deny the petition for review.

[682]*682Lopez filed a Notice of Appeal (Form EOIR — 26) with the BIA and indicated on it that he would file a brief. Because he failed to file the brief, and also failed to set out adequate reasons for his appeal in his Notice of Appeal, the BIA summarily dismissed. Lopez did not raise the issue of the summary dismissal in his brief to this Court. Accordingly, we regard Lopez’s failure as a waiver of his right to challenge the BIA’s decision. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir. 1996).

We do not consider Lopez’s contentions regarding the IJ’s underlying decision because these issues were not first considered by the BIA. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 F. App'x 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-ashcroft-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack