Unpublished Disposition, 928 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Silvio Escobar-Farrach, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) summary dismissal of his appeal for failure to adequately specify the grounds for the appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.1(d) (1-a) (i). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) and deny the petition for review.

* Background

On June 30, 1986, Escobar-Farrach was issued an order to show cause why he should not be deported pursuant to section 241(a) (2) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (2), as an alien who entered the United States without inspection.

At his initial deportation hearing, Escobar-Farrach conceded deportability but requested asylum and withholding of deportation under sections 208(a) and 243(h) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 & 1253. On June 18, 1987, the immigration judge (IJ), after holding a hearing, denied Escobar-Farrach's application for asylum and withholding of deportation as well as his request for voluntary departure. Escobar-Farrach timely filed a Form I-290A notice of appeal with the BIA in which he cited three grounds for his appeal:

A. The Immigration Judge abused his discretion in denying my request for political asylum.

B. The Immigration Judge erred in denying my request for political asylum.

C. The Immigration Judge violated my equal rights and due process rights when he denied my request for political asylum with the evidence submitted.

In his notice of appeal, Escobar-Farrach indicated that he would not be filing a supplemental brief, and did not request oral argument. On January 12, 1989, the BIA summarily dismissed Escobar-Farrach's appeal finding that the notice of appeal "consists entirely of conclusory assertions and does not express the specific rationale for those assertions." Escobar-Farrach filed a timely petition for review.

II

Standard of Review

"Although we have not clearly articulated the standard for reviewing BIA summary dismissal of appeals under 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.1(d) (1-a) (1987), we have analyzed whether such summary dismissals are 'appropriate.' " Martinez-Zelaya v. INS, 841 F.2d 294, 295 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 1364, 1365 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Escobar-Ramos v. INS, No. 88-7309, slip op. at 2375 (9th Cir. Mar. 1, 1991) (ruling on "the appropriateness of the BIA's [summary] dismissal").

III

Analysis

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.1(d) (1-a) (i), the BIA may summarily dismiss an appeal where the alien fails to specify the reasons for the appeal in the notice of appeal. We have held that summary dismissal is appropriate when the alien fails to adequately "inform the BIA of what aspects of the IJ's decision were allegedly incorrect and why." Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 1364, 1365 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Matter of Holquin, 13 I & N Dec. 423, 425-26 (BIA 1969)).

Here, Escobar-Farrach's notice of appeal is conclusory and does not adequately inform the BIA of the specific grounds for his appeal. The statements in the notice of appeal fail to cite any legal authority or any specific facts surrounding the IJ's alleged errors and in no meaningful way apprise the BIA of the specific legal or factual basis for his appeal. Thus, based on the information contained in the notice of appeal, the BIA's summary dismissal under 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.1(d) (1-a) (i) was "appropriate." See Martinez-Zelaya, 841 F.2d at 296; Reyes-Mendoza, 774 F.2d at 1364-65. Moreover, to the extent Escobar-Farrach seeks, in his brief to this court, to present the grounds for his appeal to the BIA, his "arguments come too late.... [O]ur review is confined to the BIA's decision and the bases upon which the BIA relied." Martinez-Zelaya, 841 F.2d at 296. Accordingly, Escobar-Farrach's petition for review is denied.

PETITION DENIED.