Qiuxiao Liu v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 25, 2022
• Docket: 17-70661
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

QIUXIAO LIU, No. 17-70661

Petitioner, Agency No. A206-349-063

v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Qiuxiao Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We

* 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). have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

BIA’s decision to summarily dismiss an appeal and we review de novo claims of

due process violations. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005).

We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Liu’s appeal

where his notice of appeal failed to identify specific reasons for challenging the

IJ’s decision, and where Liu indicated on his notice of appeal that a separate

written brief would be filed but failed to do so. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A),

(E), 1003.3(b); see also Singh, 416 F.3d at 1013 (summary dismissal was not an

abuse of discretion where notice of appeal lacked sufficient specificity and no brief

was filed after indicating the intent to file a separate written brief).

Liu’s related contention that the BIA violated his right to due process by

summarily dismissing his appeal fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th

Cir. 2000) (error is required to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 17-70661