Jose Alides Valles, Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent, 122 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 1997)
Annotate this CaseOn Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Before: SCHROEDER, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
Jose Alides Valles, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) and 1253(h). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a and we deny the petition.
The BIA summarily dismissed Valles' appeal because he failed to specifically identify any factual or legal error committed by the IJ, and he failed to submit a written brief after indicating in his Notice of Appeal that he would.
In his statement of the case before this court, Valles notes that he did not receive a copy of the deportation hearing transcript, and that he did not receive notice of the deadline for filing a brief with the BIA. In the body of his brief before this court, however, Valles challenges only the IJ's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. He does not address the BIA's summary dismissal of his appeal on procedural grounds. Accordingly, Valles has waived his right to challenge the BIA's summary dismissal. See United States v. Kimble, 107 F.3d 712, 715 n. 2 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 2471 (1997).
Moreover, our review is limited to the BIA's decision, except to the extent the BIA expressly adopts the IJ's decision. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, the BIA summarily dismissed Valles' appeal without reaching the merits of his claims for asylum and withholding of deportation, and without adopting any portion of the IJ's decision. Accordingly, we do not consider Valles' direct challenge to the IJ's decision. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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.