NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YESENIA ELIZABETH MONGE RAMIREZ; KATHERINE NAYELI DIAZ MONGE; ALCIDES USIEL NAVARRO MONGE; ISRAEL LISANDRO CASTELLANOS CORDOVA,

Petitioners,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 21

- 1221 Agency No s

. A208

- 309

- 899 A208

- 309

- 900 A208

- 309

- 901 A208

- 309

- 913

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 2 7 , 2023 **

Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges
Yesenia Ramirez and her family, natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek
review of the B oard of I mmigration A ppeal s ’ (“BIA”) summary dismiss al of their appeal from the denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without ora l argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 1 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 1221

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Petitioners also
seek review of the BIA’s den ial of t he i r motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing questions of law de novo, Padilla v. Ashcroft , 334 F

. 3d 921, 923 (9th Cir. 2003), and the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Cano

-

Merida v. INS , 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002) , w e deny the petition

. 1. The BIA did not violate P etitioners’ due process rights when it summarily dismissed their appeal. When appealing f rom an I mmigration J udge ’s (“IJ”) decision, aliens must “provide meaningful guidance to the BIA by informing it of the issues contested on appeal; a generalized and conclusory statement about the proceedings before the IJ does not suffice.” Nolasco

- Amaya
v. Garland , 14 F.4th 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2021) (s implified). Aliens can also provide the reasons supporting the appeal “ either in a separate brief or on the Notice of Appeal itself. ” Id.
Petitioners never filed a brief. And their notice of appeal stated only that the IJ erred in finding that they had not established their claim s for asylum and withholding of removal and erred in denying CAT relief

. Those statements “[do] not indicate which facts were in contention and how the IJ misinterpreted the
evidence.” Toquero v. INS , 956 F.2d 193, 196 (9th Cir. 1992). Because the notice of appeal failed to state a specific error, the BIA’s summary dismissal did not
violate P etitioners’ due process rights

. See Singh v. Ashcroft , 361 F.3d 1152,

115 7 (9th Cir. 2004) ( “In cases where the petitioner’s description of the grounds3 21

- 1221

for appeal in the Notice of Appeal lacks the requisite specificity, we have consistently upheld the BIA ’s exercise of this authority” )

. 2

. T he BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion for failure to substantially comply with the procedural requirements set out in Matter of Lozada , 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988)

. To reopen based on an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim , movants must first inform counsel of the allegations
and give him “the opportunity to respond. ” Id

. at 639

. Generally, the BIA does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reopen based on a failure to comply with this requirement. Castillo

- Perez v. INS , 212 F.3d 518, 525 (9th Cir. 2000). In this case, Petitioners argue that they complied with Lozada . But the y
failed to notify their previous counsel of their ineffective assistance allegat ion

— one of Lozada ’s requirements. 19 I & N. Dec. at 639

. Petitioners’ argument that they provide d notice lacks support in the record

. A nd n either their statement nor their complaint to the state bar shows that they provided notice to counsel

. See Rey es v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 592, 59 8

- 99 (9th Cir. 20 04) ( stating that petitioner ’ s carbon copy of fo rmer counsel on bar complaint was not sufficient notice).
While w e have excused noncompliance with Lozada when it is “ obvious and undisputed” from the record that counsel was ineffective , Reyes , 358 F.3d at
597 , Petitioners do not argue that we should depart from Lozada ’s requirements
here.

PETITION DENIED

.