Reyes-Mendoza v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
9th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025Rangel-Fuentes v. Bondi 10th Cir.
- 2024Rangel-Fuentes v. Garland 10th Cir.
- 2018Jose Urista Guerra v. Jefferson Sessions, III 9th Cir.
- 2016Sanchez v. Lynch 9th Cir.
- 2006Ray v. Gonzales 9th Cir.
- 2005Singh v. Gonzales 9th Cir.
- 2004Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft 9th Cir.
- 2002Vargas-Garcia v. Immigration & Naturalization Service 9th Cir.
- 2002Casas-Chavez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service 9th Cir.
- 2001Singh v. Ashcroft 9th Cir.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Juan Carlos REYES-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Attorneys
- Gary Silbiger, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
- Lawrence Chamblee, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
In August 1983 an Immigration Judge (IJ) found petitioner Juan Carlos Reyes-Mendoza deportable, denied Reyes’ motion for suspension of deportation, and granted Reyes voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily dismissed his appeal. We affirm.
Following the IJ’s oral decision, Reyes, through his attorney, appealed to the BIA using Form I-290A (Notice of Appeal). In response to the request on the Form that he “[bjriefly, state reasons for this appeal,” Reyes’ counsel wrote “Wrongful denial of suspension of deportation.” Below, he filled in blanks provided by the Form indicating: “I DO desire oral argument before the [BIA]” and “I AM filing a separate written brief or statement.”
However, despite two extensions of time, no such separate written brief or statement was submitted to the BIA. The BIA therefore summarily dismissed the appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i) for failure to specify sufficiently the basis for appeal. We affirm. The six-word statement on the Form was inadequate to inform the BIA of what aspects of the IJ’s decision were allegedly incorrect and why. See Matter of Holquin, 13 I & N Dec. 423, 425-26 (BIA 1969). Summary dismissal was therefore appropriate. See Santana-Figueroa v. I. & N.S., 644 F.2d 1354, 1357 n. 9 (9th Cir.1981).
AFFIRMED.
. Reyes’ attorney, Gary Silbinger, signed the Form. We assume that he also prepared the Form.