NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Nos.

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 27, 2023**

Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges

Yesenia Ramirez and her family, natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary dismissal 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 oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 1 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-1221

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Petitioners also 

seek review of the BIA’s denial of their 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), we deny 

the petition.

1. The BIA did not violate Petitioners’ due process rights when it 

summarily dismissed their appeal. When appealing from an Immigration Judge’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) (simplified). 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 claims 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 Petitioners’ due process rights. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 

1157 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In cases where the petitioner’s description of the grounds 
3 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. The 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 they 

failed to notify their previous counsel of their ineffective assistance allegation—

one of Lozada’s requirements. 19 I & N. Dec. at 639. Petitioners’ argument that 

they provided notice lacks support in the record. And neither their statement nor 

their complaint to the state bar shows that they provided notice to counsel. See 

Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 598-99 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that petitioner’s 

carbon copy of former counsel on bar complaint was not sufficient notice). 

While we 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.