N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT YOSM ANY M OLINA-C A R ILLO,

Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-72982 Age n c y No. A203-498-774 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d and Subm itte d June 8, 2021 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , C ALLAHAN, a

n d FOR RE ST, C irc u it Judge s. Pe titione r Yosm any

M o lina -C arillo, a

nat ive and c itiz e n

of C u ba , pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (" B IA" ) orde r sum m arily dism issing his a

ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (" IJ" ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd re l ie f unde r the C o nve ntion Aga inst Torture . W e de ny the pe tition. 

# FIL ED SEP 28 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.1. The B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in sum m a rily dism i ssing Pe titione r’ s a ppe a l. 8 C .F.R . § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E); se e Singh v. Gonz a le s , 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th C ir. 2005) (sta

ting sta nda rd of re vie w). Sum

m ary dism issa l is a ppropria te if the pe titione r ha s fa ile d to providethe B IA with " m e aningful guida n c e " a s to there a sons for thea ppe a l, e ithe r in his Notic e of Appe a l or in a se pa ra te brie f. Toque ro v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 195 (9th C ir. 1992); C a sa s-C have z v. INS, 300 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th C ir. 2002). TheB IA is not re quire d to " se arc h through there c ord a

nd spe c ulate on wha

t possible e rrors the [pe t itione r] c la im s" or

" de c iphe r ge ne ra l sta

t e m e n t s of e rror, unsupporte d by spe c ific fa c t

ua l or le ga l re fe re n c e s." R oja s-Ga

rc ia v. Ashc roft, 339 F.3d 814, 820 (9th C ir. 2003) (a lte ra tion in origina

l) (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). Pe titione r’ s Notic e of Appe a l sta t e s only tha t he " ha s fe ar to re turn to his native c ountry of C u

ba due to his prote c te d ground tha s [sic ] Politic a l Opinion." That is a " ge ne ra liz e d a

nd c onc lusory

sta te m e nt" that fa ils to sa

tisfy the re gula tion’ s spe c ific i ty

re quire m e nt. Toque ro, 956 F.2d a t 195. W e c o nstrue pro se notic e s libe ra l ly . Nola s c o-Am a y a v. Ga rland, No. 20-70187 (9th C ir. 2021). B ut Pe titione r’ s Notic e of Appe a l, e ve n re a d broa dly , doe s not a l e rt the B IA a s to why he be lie ve s tha

t the IJ e rre d. Se e Ga

rc ia -C orte z v. Ashc roft, 366 F.3d 749, 753 (9th C i r. 2004) (de sc ribing thespe c ific ity re quire m e nt). 22. Pe titione r a lso a sks this c ourt to re vie wthe IJ’ s de c ision. B ut be c a use the B IA dism isse d Pe titione r’ s a ppe a l on proc e dura l grounds, wela c k jurisdic t ion to c onside r the IJ’ s unde rly i ng de n ia l of Pe titione r’ s a pplic ations for re lie f. Se e id. a t 752 (" [W ] e m ay

not re a c h the m e rits of the IJ’ s de c ision he re , but a re re stric te d to re vie wing the B IA’ s sum m ary dism i ssa l for a

p p ropriate ne ss." ). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3