Case ID: f-appx_87/html/0077-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francisco ORTEGA; Lourdes Ortega, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-70874.
    Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 2, 2004.
    
    Decided Feb. 4, 2004.
    Simon Salinas, Tustin, CA,for Petitioners.
    Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, John C. Cunningham, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before CANEY, RYMER, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The petitioners have failed to address in their brief the only ground on which the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily dismissed their appeal. That issue accordingly has been abandoned. See Collins v. City of San Diego, 841 F.2d 337, 339 (9th Cir.1988). Moreover, the petitioners in their notice of appeal to the Board did not address the only ground (untimeliness) on which the Immigration Judge denied relief. In those circumstances it was permissible for the Board summarily to dismiss their appeal when they failed to file the brief that they had indicated they would file. See Casas-Chavez v. INS, 300 F.3d 1088, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2002).

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.