Xuezhi Jia v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Xuezhi Jia v. Loretta E. Lynch

637 F. App'x 478

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 2016

Docket12-72964

StatusUnpublished

This text of 637 F. App'x 478 (Xuezhi Jia v. Loretta E. Lynch) 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

Xuezhi Jia v. Loretta E. Lynch, 637 F. App'x 478 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Xuezhi Jia, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s decision to summarily dismiss an appeal. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Jia’s appeal because he failed to file a brief or statement as he indicated on his Notice of Appeal, and the Notice of Appeal itself lacked sufficient specificity regarding the grounds for appeal. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A),(E); Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749, 752 (9th Cir.2004) (“it is well-established that the BIA may summarily dismiss an alien’s appeal if an alien submits no separate written brief or statement to the BIA and inadequately informs the BIA of what aspects of the decision were allegedly incorrect and why”) (internal quotation-marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original); see also Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 819-20 (9th Cir.2003) (summary dismissal appropriate where the Notice of Appeal “merely contained generalized and conclusory statements] about the proceedings before the IJ and failed to specify the particular details contested”) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Jia’s contentions challenging the IJ’s denial of relief because he did not raise them to the *479 BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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 **

Xuezhi Jia, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s decision to summarily dismiss an appeal. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Jia’s appeal because he failed to file a brief or statement as he indicated on his Notice of Appeal, and the Notice of Appeal itself lacked sufficient specificity regarding the grounds for appeal. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A),(E); Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749, 752 (9th Cir.2004) (“it is well-established that the BIA may summarily dismiss an alien’s appeal if an alien submits no separate written brief or statement to the BIA and inadequately informs the BIA of what aspects of the decision were allegedly incorrect and why”) (internal quotation-marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original); see also Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 819-20 (9th Cir.2003) (summary dismissal appropriate where the Notice of Appeal “merely contained generalized and conclusory statements] about the proceedings before the IJ and failed to specify the particular details contested”) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Jia’s contentions challenging the IJ’s denial of relief because he did not raise them to the *479 BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

637 F. App'x 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xuezhi-jia-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack