Opinion
No. 05-71467.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed March 15, 2007.
Ambriz Roberto, Fontana, CA, pro se.
District Director, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Greg D. Mack, Esq., Leslie Mckay, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Scott J. Watson, U.S. Department of Justice Oil/Civil Div c/o Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A72-534-753.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Ambriz Roberto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review summary dismissals to determine whether they are appropriate, Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA's summary dismissal of Roberto's appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A) was appropriate because Roberto failed to state specific grounds for appeal in the Notice of Appeal and did not file a separate brief. See id. at 1157 (upholding summary dismissal where Notice of Appeal lacked requisite specificity); Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749, 752 (9th Cir. 2004) (it is well established that the BIA may summarily dismiss an 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).
We lack jurisdiction to review the underlying merits of Roberto's appeal because the BIA dismissed on procedural grounds only and did not reach the merits. See Singh, 361 F.3d at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.