JOSEPH R. BONNE-ANNEE, PETITIONER,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not err in summarily dismissing the appeal because the petitioner failed to adequately specify the grounds for his appeal.
An immigration judge found the petitioner deportable and denied asylum. The petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal stating general re…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pro Se Litigant Obligations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
On March 5, 1985, an immigration judge found petitioner Joseph Bonne-Annee de-portable and ineligible for political asylum, and granted him voluntary departure from the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily dismissed petitioner’s appeal and denied his request for oral argument. We affirm.
Subsequent to the immigration judge’s decision, Bonne-Annee’s counsel withdrew from the case. On March 15, 1985, Bonne-Annee, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal to the BIA using Form I-290A. The notice of appeal directed petitioner to “[bjriefly, state reasons for this appeal,”1 and he stated that the judge “was incorrect in finding me deportable,” “was incorrect in denying my political asylum application,” and “was wrong in denying my motion for a continuance and my motion for Interrogatory [sic].” Bonne-Annee requested oral argument and indicated that he would file a separate written brief or statement. However, Bonne-Annee never submitted additional documentation, and the only information before the BIA concerning the grounds for appeal was the general statement in the notice of appeal. On April 16, 1986, the BIA summarily dismissed Bonne-Annee’s appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(l-a)(i) because he had failed to identify adequately the basis of his challenge to the immigration judge’s decision.
The regulations permit the BIA to summarily dismiss appeals in four circumstances, including any case where “the party concerned fails to specify the reasons for his appeal on Form I-290A (Notice of Appeal).” 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(l-a)(i). When a petitioner, proceeding through a representative or pro se, fails to apprise the Board of the specific grounds for his appeal, whether by specifying the reasons in the notice of appeal or by submitting an additional statement or brief, summary dismissal is appropriate. See Townsend v. INS, 799 F. 2d 179 (5th Cir.1986); Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F. 2d 1364 (9th Cir.1985); In re Valencia, Interim Dec. No. 3006 (B.I.A. 1986). Otherwise the BIA is left to speculate whether petitioner challenges erroneous findings of fact or law, or both.
Bonne-Annee failed to provide the BIA with sufficient information regarding the specific grounds of his appeal. Although Bonne-Anne had more than one year in which to submit additional documentation to supplement the extremely brief statement contained in his notice of appeal, he • failed to do so. Accordingly, summary dismissal is appropriate.
AFFIRMED.
. Instructions on the reverse side of Form I-290A state that the BIA "may deny oral argument or summarily dismiss any appeal in any deportation proceeding in which (i) the party concerned fails to specify the reason for his appeal on the reverse side of this form____”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Michaelle Lapaix v. U.S. Attorney General, 605 F.3d 1138 (11th Cir. 2010)…G). Previously, we reviewed the BIA’s summary dismissal of an appeal to determine if the dismissal was “appropriate,” without articulating the precise standard of review. See Bayro v. Reno, 142 F. 3d 1377, 1379 (11th Cir.1998); Bonne-Annee v. INS, 810 F. 2d 1077, 1078 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam). However, in Esponda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., we held that because the regulation indicates the BIA “may” summarily dismiss an appeal, it vests discretion in the BIA. 453 F. 3d 1319, 1321 (11th Cir.2006). Because the…
-
Martinez-Zelaya v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 841 F.2d 294 (9th Cir. 1988)…opriate if an alien submits no separate written brief or statement to the BIA and inadequately informs the BIA of “what aspects of the IJ’s decision were allegedly incorrect and why.” Reyes-Mendoza, 774 F. 2d at 1364-65; see also Bonne-Annee v. INS, 810 F. 2d 1077, 1078 (11th Cir.1987); Townsend v. INS, 799 F. 2d 179, 181-82 (5th Cir.1986).2 Martinez-Zelaya failed to offer evidence to the BIA explaining why she made no objection at the hearing if the attorney was not in fact authorized to represent her. More…1 / 2
-
Athehortua-Vanegas v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 876 F.2d 238 (1st Cir. 1989)…s to specify the reasons for his appeal”). We believe that summary dismissal was altogether appropriate. See, e.g., Lozada v. INS, 857 F. 2d 10, 11-13 (1st Cir.1988); Martinez-Zelaya v. INS, 841 F. 2d 294, 295-96 (9th Cir.1988); Bonne-Annee v. INS, 810 F. 2d 1077, 1078 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam); Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F. 2d 1364, 1364-65 (9th Cir.1985). Petitioner’s conclusory broadside was entirely unenlightening, offering neither substance nor direction. As in Lozada, where we approved summary dismis…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Townsend v. U.S. Dep't of Just. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 799 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1986)
- Reyes-Mendoza v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 774 F.2d 1364 (9th Cir. 1985)