Unpublished Disposition, 848 F.2d 198 (9th Cir. 1986)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Gregorio Bautista-Lemus (Bautista) petitions for review of the summary dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his appeal from a final order of deportation issued by an immigration judge (IJ). The BIA dismissed Bautista's appeal for not adequately specifying a reason for appeal. We deny the petition for review.

Bautista is a native and citizen of Honduras. At a deportation hearing before the IJ on September 12, 1986, Bautista conceded his deportability. Bautista chose not to apply for asylum and was ordered deported. Bautista filed a notice of appeal, pro se, with the BIA on September 16, 1986, but he did not file any supplemental brief or statement. However, Bautista stated in his notice of appeal that he was appealing because he could not work as he wanted to in Honduras and because he did not want to be deported to Honduras.

An alien must inform the BIA of "what aspects of the IJ's decision are incorrect and why." 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.1(d) (1-a) (i); Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 1364, 1365 (9th Cir. 1985). In Reyes-Mendoza, Reyes' statement in his notice of appeal, " [w]rongful denial of suspension of deportation," was an inadequate specification of reasons for his appeal. Id. Bautista's statement was:

... because the political situation don't let us work as we want and I don't realy [sic] want to be deported to my country, what I want is a bond reduction to make it easier for me to pay it, I have some friends and my aun't [sic] living in here the [U]nited [S]tates and they can help me in my cause.

It fails to allege any specific error by the IJ and is an inadequate specification of reasons for the appeal. Therefore, the BIA appropriately summarily dismissed Bautista's appeal.

In his petition for review, Bautista contends he was denied due process at his deportation hearing because he was deprived of counsel, because he was forced to proceed in a hearing with six other aliens, and because the formality of the hearing before the IJ was unconstitutionally intimidating. This court will not review due process claims that involve procedural errors which the BIA could have corrected had the alien raised them before the BIA. Vargas v. INS, 831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir. 1987); see Reid v. Engen, 765 F.2d 1457, 1461 (9th Cir. 1985.) Bautista did not raise these alleged errors before his appeal was dismissed by the BIA. He failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Accordingly we need not address these claims.

The petition for review is DENIED.