ESMERALDA MUNOZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-72937 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 19 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ESMERALDA MARISOL MUNOZ, Petitioner, No. 12-72937 Agency No. A099-828-392 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Esmeralda Marisol Munoz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) summary dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA s summary dismissal of 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 Munoz s appeal because she failed to file a brief or statement as she indicated on her Notice of Appeal, and the Notice of Appeal itself lacked sufficient specificity regarding the grounds for appeal. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2004) ( The BIA simply cannot evaluate the merits of an appeal unless the petitioner clearly expresses what he considers to be the factual and/or legal inadequacies of the IJ s challenged decision. ). We reject Munoz s contention that the BIA failed to sufficiently articulate the reasons for its decision. We lack jurisdiction to review Munoz s contentions regarding the merits of her claims. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 12-72937

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.