Case ID: f-appx_98/html/0686-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Salvador MARROQUIN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-70562.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 10, 2004.
    
    Decided May 20, 2004.
    Salvador Marroquin, Desert Hot Springs, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Daniel E. Goldman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The docket shall be amended to reflect that John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the sole respondent.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Salvador Marroquin, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for a review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“U”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1997). We review a summary dismissal to determine whether it is appropriate, Casas-Chavez v. INS, 300 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition.

Marroquin’s appeal was appropriately dismissed for failure to file a brief because the contentions contained in his notice of appeal did not specify whether he was challenging the IJ’s interpretations of facts or applications of legal standards, and did not contain citations to supporting authority. See id. at 1091.

Marroquin’s remaining contentions lack merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.