Torres Diaz v. Blanche

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 7 2026 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ALBERTO TORRES DIAZ, No. 25-639 Agency No. Petitioner, A240-083-885 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

JOSE ALBERTO TORRES DIAZ, No. 25-2519 Petitioner, Agency No. A240-083-885 v.

TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

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

Argued and Submitted June 23, 2026 Pasadena, California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Before: FRIEDLAND, FORREST, AND DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Jose Alberto Torres Diaz petitions for review of the summary

dismissal of his appeal by the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or “Board”)

and the BIA’s subsequent denial of his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

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

appeal. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005). The same

standard applies to the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider. Lara-Torres v.

Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended sub nom. Lara-Torres v.

Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005). “We must uphold the Board’s ruling

unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” Id. (citation modified).

1. Petitioner argues that the BIA erred by summarily dismissing his appeal

because his Notice of Appeal was sufficiently specific to put the BIA on notice of

his reasons for appeal, even though he did not submit a separate brief after

indicating he would. “The BIA employs a strict specificity requirement when

evaluating the notice of reasons for appeal.” Casas Chavez v. INS, 300 F.3d 1088,

1090 (9th Cir. 2002). “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

2 25-639 v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1992)).

Here, Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal offered only a “meager description of

the grounds for appeal.” Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1155 n.2 (9th Cir.

2004). Petitioner’s cursory arguments “left [the BIA] guessing at how and why

petitioner thought the [Immigration Judge (“IJ”)] erred.” Nolasco-Amaya, 14 F.4th

at 1012 (quoting Casas Chavez, 300 F.3d at 1090); see also Rojas-Garcia v.

Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 820-21 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that petitioner failed to

meet the specificity requirement because he “did not provide ‘supporting authority’

on any question of law presented” so “[t]he BIA [was] left to reconstruct the IJ

proceedings, infer factual error without knowledge of what precise error is

complained of, and build the legal analysis from only general statements of legal

conclusion.”). Indeed, before our court, Petitioner took the position that some of

the wording in the Notice of Appeal described issues he was not actually trying to

appeal. The BIA accordingly did not abuse its discretion when it summarily

dismissed Petitioner’s appeal.

2. Petitioner also argues that the BIA abused its discretion by denying his

motion to reconsider. A motion to reconsider “is a request that the Board

reexamine its decision in light of additional legal arguments, a change of law, or

perhaps an argument or aspect of the case which was overlooked.” Iturribarria v.

INS, 321 F.3d 889, 896 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Matter of Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec.

3 25-639 399, 402 n.2 (BIA 1991)). Because the sole basis of Petitioner’s motion to

reconsider was that the BIA made a legal error in summarily denying his appeal,

and we conclude that was not error, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying

the motion to reconsider.

Petition DENIED.1

1 The temporary administrative stay of removal is lifted, and the motion to stay removal, Dkt. No. 5, is denied.

4 25-639