Unpublished Disposition, 884 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Petitioners Andy Mabel Escobar-Ramos and Jose Maximo Martinez-Reyes seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) orders dismissing their appeals from an Immigration Judge's decisions finding them deportable and denying their applications for asylum. Petitioners claim they were not given enough time to submit briefs to the BIA. We affirm the BIA's orders and deny the petitions for review.

Petitioners were apprehended entering the United States and were served with orders to show cause on May 7, 1984. A deportation hearing was held and on December 2, 1985 the Immigration Judge ordered petitioners deported and granted them voluntary departure.

On December 12, 1985 petitioners' counsel filed a notice of appeal (Form 1-290A) in which he stated generally the grounds for appeal and indicated that, although he did not desire oral argument, he would file a separate written brief after reviewing the transcript of the hearing. Petitioners' counsel never submitted a brief, requested additional time to do so or offered an explanation for his failure to do so.¹  On June 28, 1988, the BIA rendered a decision upholding the decision of the immigration judge and summarily dismissing the appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.1(d) (1-a) (i) and (iv) on the grounds that the generalized statements found in the Notice of Appeal failed to adequately disclose the reasons for the appeal and that the appeal was filed solely for the purpose of delay. The BIA noted that it was this counsel's usual practice to fail to submit written briefs despite representations that he would do so. The BIA concluded that this consistent practice was an abuse of process designed to perpetuate respondents' unlawful stay in this country.

In their brief in this court petitioners claim only that they were not accorded sufficient time to prepare a brief following receipt of the transcript.² 

We affirm the BIA's decision. The reasons for the appeal must inform the BIA of " 'what aspects of the IJ's decision were allegedly incorrect and why.' " Martinez-Zelaya v. INS., 841 F.2d 294, 296 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Reyes-Mendoza v. INS., 774 F.2d 1364-65 (9th Cir. 1985)). The reasons stated in petitioners' notice of appeal to the BIA were not adequately detailed by themselves to permit appellate consideration. Petitioners point to no effort on their part to secure additional time or to otherwise provide an adequate explanation of their grounds for appeal during the eight months between the time the transcript was complete and the date the BIA rendered its decision.³ 

The petition for review is DENIED.