Last Updated: Thursday, 18 September 2014, 13:28 GMT

Ray Wilfredo Avila Flores v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Publisher United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Publication Date 3 December 1993
Citation / Document Symbol Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4
Reference 93-70443
Cite as Ray Wilfredo Avila Flores v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 3 December 1993, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b66838.html [accessed 18 September 2014]
Comments Submitted: 17 November, 1993; Filed: 3 December, 1993 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument
DisclaimerThis is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.

RAY WILFREDO AVILA FLORES, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 93-70443 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
November 17, 1993, ** Submitted ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for
decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th
Cir. R. 34-4.
December 3, 1993, Filed

Subsequent History: Reported in Table Case Format at: 12 F.3d 1106 .

Prior History:

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. INS No. A71-886-623

Disposition:

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Judges:

Before: SCHROEDER, D. W. NELSON and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:

MEMORANDUM

Ray Wilfredo Avila Flores, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge's decision finding him deportable as charged and denying his applications for asylum, withholding of deportation and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105(a), and we deny the petition for review.

Although we have not clearly articulated the standard of review for the BIA's summary dismissal of appeals, we have analyzed whether such summary dismissals are "appropriate." Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 194 (9th Cir. 1992). Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i)(A), the BIA may summarily dismiss an appeal if the petitioner fails to specify the reasons for the appeal in the notice of appeal. We have held that summary dismissal is appropriate if the petitioner submits no separate written brief to the BIA and the petitioner's notice of appeal inadequately informs 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. 1985).

In his notice of appeal to the BIA, Flores stated only that he was a deserter from the Honduran Army. Although he indicated that he would file a separate written brief, he failed to do so. Because the notice of appeal did not meaningfully apprise the BIA of the reasons for his appeal, the BIA's summary dismissal was appropriate. See Toquero, 956 F.2d at 195.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Search Refworld