FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 07 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS URISTA GUERRA, No. 15-70649 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-405-900 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted August 28, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: BYBEE and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and HERNANDEZ,** District Judge. José Luis Urista-Guerra (Urista-Guerra) has applied for withholding of removal and protection under the regulations implementing the Convention * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Marco A. Hernandez, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. /Panel Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Urista-Guerra’s applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily dismissed Urista-Guerra’s appeal, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E), after he indicated that he would file a brief and failed to timely do so. He then filed a petition for review in this court, which we deny. Because the BIA dismissed Urista-Guerra’s appeal on procedural grounds, this court’s jurisdiction is limited to review of the BIA dismissal itself. Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, we cannot address the claims Urista-Guerra has raised regarding proceedings before the IJ. We review the BIA’s summary dismissal to determine whether it violates Urista-Guerra’s Fifth Amendment right to a fair appeal. Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749, 753 (9th Cir. 2004). Summary dismissal is appropriate only if the petitioner has failed to provide the BIA with “meaningful guidance,” either in his Notice of Appeal or in a separate brief. Id. at 752; Casas–Chavez v. INS, 300 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2002). Urista-Guerra provided the BIA with no such guidance. On September 29, 2014, Urista-Guerra filed a Notice of Appeal with the BIA pro se. His allegations read: The immigration judge denied my case based on my medical records. He did not give my [sic] time to turn in all my evidence for review. My court /Panel 2 was cancelled on 9/23/2014 wich [sic] did not allow me a chance to turn in my evidence and simply defend myself. I have evidence to defend myself in front of a judge that is going to review my case throughlly whit [sic] all the evidence I am able to present. Urista-Guerra also checked a box to indicate that he would file a separate written brief. However, he failed to timely file this brief, despite the BIA twice extending the briefing deadline by a total of six weeks at Urista-Guerra’s request. On January 29, 2015—fifteen days after the briefing deadline—Urista-Guerra filed a one-sentence Motion for Consideration of a Late-Filed Brief, to which he attached medical documents but not a brief. He submitted a brief, containing mostly boilerplate legal arguments not relevant to his case, one day later. We first consider whether the BIA should ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals