Jorge Lopez-carache, Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent, 73 F.3d 369 (9th Cir. 1995)
Annotate this CaseBefore: SNEED, TROTT, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Jorge Lopez-Carache, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, summarily dismissing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.1(d) (1-a) (i) (1991)) his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105(a), and we deny the petition for review.
Lopez-Carache contends the BIA erred in dismissing for his failure to specify the reasons for his appeal, because his "statement of reasons for his appeal was sufficiently detailed to allow the BIA to determine the nature of the error and to guide the BIA in its preliminary assessment of the record."
Where a petitioner's counsel fails to file a supporting brief after indicating an intention to do so, and where counsel fails to respond to the government's brief arguing for summary dismissal, the BIA's dismissal is justified. Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 196-97 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, Lopez-Carache offered only a generalized statement of the reasons for his appeal, and his counsel failed to file a supporting brief or respond to the government's summary dismissal motion. Accordingly, the BIA did not err in dismissing his appeal. Id.1
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. The government's request for oral argument is 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
Because the BIA did not address the merits of Lopez-Carache's asylum claim, and the alleged procedural errors of the immigration judge, these issues are not properly before this court. See Elganer v. INS, 930 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1991) ("this court's review is limited to the decision of the BIA".)
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
