Interim Decision #3006 

MATTER OF VALENCIA 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-24305559 

Decided by Board February .14, 1986 

Where the respondent presented a generalized statement on the Notice of Appeal 

(Form I-290A), failed to express the specific rationale for his conclusory assertions, 

filed no separate written brief, and did not seek oral argument to further explain 

the alleged error, his appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 § 3.1(d)(1- 

aXi) (1985) for failure to adequately specify the reasons for the appealCHARGE: 

Order Act of 1252—Sec. Z41(aX2) j8 U.S.C. § 1251(aX2)] —Nonimmigrant—remained longer than permitted 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Louis Sortoridos, Esquire Tprusits R. Cluer-rern 

152 Central Avenue General Attorney 

Jersey City, New Jersey 07306 

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Dunne, Morris, and Vacca, Board Members 

In a decision dated September 25, 1985, the immigration judge 

found the respondent deportable on his own admissions under section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1251(a)(2) (1982), as a nonimmigrant crewman who remained 

longer than permitted, and granted him voluntary departure in 

lieu of deportation. The respondent has appealed frora that decision. The appeal will be summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 

§ 3.1(d)(1-a)(i) (1985). 

On his Notice of Appeal (Form I-290A), the respondent, through 

counsel, states the following as his reason for this appeal: "I respectfully submit that the hearing officer erred in that of the appellant [sic] burden of proving a well-founded fear of persecution in 

his native Nicaragua." The respondent also specified on the Notice 

of Appeal that he does not desire oral argument and that he is not 

filing a separate written brief in support of his appeal. 

We are unable to determine from the respondent's stated reason 

for his appeal whether the error he alleges relates to the particular 

354 
Interim Decision #3006 

facts of his case, the law applied to them by the immigration judge, 

or both. By presenting only a generalized statement without filing 

a supporting brief to explain the specific aspects of the immigration judges order that the respondent considers to be incorrect, he 

hasfailed to meaningfully identify the reasons for taking an 

appeal. In order to review the appeal, it would therefore be necessary for the Board to search through the record and speculate on 

what possible errors the respondent claims. 

The regulations provide for summary dismissal of an appeal 

where the party concerned fails to specify the reasons for the 

appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i) (1985). In Matter of Holguin, 13 I&N 

Dec. 423 (BIA. 1969), we noted that this regulation was designed to 

permit us to deal promptly with appeals where the reasons given 

for the appeal are inadequate to apprise the Board of the particular basis for the alien's claim that the immigration judge's decision 

is wrong. We find that the respondent's appeal is one which warrants summary dismissal for failure to state with specificity the 

grounds few taking the appeal. See Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 

1364 (9th Cir. 1985). 

It is essential to the Board's adjudication of an appeal that the 

reasons given on the Notice of Appeal be as detailed as possible so 

that the alleged error can be identified and addressed. Without a. 

specific statement, the Board can only guess at how the alien disagrees with the immigration judge's decision. It is therefore insufficient to merely assert that the immigration judge improperly found 

that deportability had been established or denied an application for 

relief from deportation. See Reyes Mendoza v. INS, supra. Where 

eligibility for discretionary relief is at issue, it should be stated 

whether the error relates to grounds of statutory eligibility or to 

the exercise of discretion. Furthermore, it should be clear whether 

the alleged impropriety in the decision lies with the immigration 

judge's interpretation of the facts or his application of legal standards. Where a question of law is presented, supporting authority 

should be included, and where the dispute is on the facts, there 

should be a discussion of the particular details contested. 

Although the regulations only refer to the reasons that must be 

stated on. the Notice of Appeal, the contentions made by an alien 

on appeal are of course best presented in a brief setting forth his 

arguments. Depending on the complexity of the issues raised, a 

brief may be essential to an adequate presentation of the appeal. In 

all cases, however, the reasons for an appeal must be meaningfully 

identified on the Notice of Appeal. 

The respondent has stated only that the immigration judge erred 

in finding no well-founded fear of persecution. He has chosen not to 

355 
Interim Decision #3006 

submit a brief to enlighten us as to the specific rationale for his 

conclusory assertions and did not request an opportunity for oral 

argument. Under these circumstances, we find that summary dismissal of the appeal is appropriate. Accordingly, the appeal will be 

dismissed. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

FURTHER ORDER: Pursuant to the immigration judge's 

order and in accordance with our decision in Matter of Chouliaris, 

16 1&N Dec. 168 (BIA 1977), the respondent is permitted to depart 

from the United States voluntarily within 30 days from the date of 

this order or any extension beyond that time as may be granted by 

the district director; in the event of failure so to depart, the respondent shall be deported as provided in the immigration judge's 

order. 

356