NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 25 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEJANDRO GUZMAN, AKA Alejandro No. 19-72159 Deniz, Agency No. A098-345-482 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: GOULD and BEA, Circuit Judges, and VITALIANO,*** District Judge. Alejandro Guzman (“Guzman”) petitions for review the Board of Immigration’s (“BIA”) summary dismissal of his application for asylum, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Eric N. Vitaliano, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3), and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of the case, we do not recite them here. We review the BIA’s summary dismissal of an appeal for abuse of discretion. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005). 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i) requires a petitioner provide the BIA with notice of the reason for appeal “by setting out the reasons on the Notice of Appeal itself or by filing a separate brief.” Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, No. 20-70187, 2021 WL 4436186, at *3 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2021) (quoting Casas-Chavez v. INS, 300 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2002)). Guzman did not provide any reasons for his appeal on either his Notice of Appeal or a supplemental brief. On this record, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Guzman’s appeal. See, e.g., Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749, 752 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Martinez–Zelaya v. INS, 841 F.2d 294, 296 (9th Cir.1988)) (“[I]t is well-established that the BIA may summarily dismiss an alien’s appeal ‘if an alien submits no separate written brief or statement to the BIA and inadequately informs the BIA of ‘what aspects of the decision were allegedly incorrect and why.’”). Similarly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Guzman’s untimely request for an extension of time to file his brief. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1) states that the BIA “may” extend the time for filing a brief and makes clear that 2 “[n]othing in this paragraph (c)(1) shall be construed as creating a right to a briefing extension for any party in any case.” Guzman mailed his request for an extension of time to submit his brief twenty-six days after the BIA’s reasonable deadline. The BIA acted within its discretion in denying this request. Nor were Guzman’s due process rights violated. We review due process challenges de novo. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1101 (9th Cir. 2010). “A petition for review will only be granted on due process grounds if ‘(1) …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals