N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JUAN SALVADOR

OR OZC OR AM IR EZ, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-70668 Age n c y No. A214-151-045
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 Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 14, 2022 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c K EOW

N a nd W . FLETC HER , C i rc uit Judge s, a nd VR ATIL, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED FEB 16 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Kathry

n H. Vratil, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ka

nsa s, sitting by de signa

tion.Pe titione r Jua n Sa lva dor Oroz c o R a m ire z pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) sum m a ry dism issa l of his a

p pe a l of a n Im m i gra tion Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his a pplic at ion for a sy lum , withholding of
re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture (“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1252(a )(1) a nd de ny the pe tition. W he n the B IA dism isse s a n a ppe a l pure ly on proc e dura l grounds, our re vie w is lim ite d to the de c ision of theB IA and we la c k jurisdic t ion to re vie w the m e rits of the IJ’ s de c i sion. S

ingh v . Ashc roft , 361 F.3d 1152, 1156

– 5 7 (9th C ir. 2004). W e re vie wthe B IA’ s sum m ary dism issa l of a

n a ppe a l for a

buse of disc re tion, but

“ whe the r the sum

m a ry dism issa l viola

t e d a pe titione r’ s due proc e ss rights is a que stion of la

w tha t we re vie w de novo.” N

olasc o-Amay a v . Garland , 14 F.4th 1007, 1012 (9th C ir. 2021). The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in sum m arily de ny ing Pe titione r’ s a ppe a l. In the spa c e o n

the Notic e of Appe a l (“

NOA” ) instruc ting Pe titione r to

“ [s] tate i n de ta i l the re a son[s] for [his] a ppe a l[,] ” Pe titione r only

wrote his na

m e and Alie n R e gistra tion Num be r. Pe titione r c he c ke d

the box on his NOA tha

t indic a te d his inte nt to file a writte n brie f or sta

te m e nt, but hene ve r file d one . The B IA sum m arily dism isse d Pe titione r’ s a

ppe a l on the grounds tha

t his NOA did not
m e aningfully a

pprise the B IA of the re a s ons for his c ha lle nge to the IJ’ s de c ision,
2and tha

t Pe titione r fa ile d to file a brie f or writte n sta

te m e nt in support of the
a ppe a l. The a

pplic a ble re gula tions a uthoriz e the B IA to sum

m arily dism iss a n a ppe a l on e ithe r ground. 8 C .F.R . § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (H); Garc ia-C orte z v . Ashc roft , 366 F.3d 749, 752 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ [I] t is we l l-e sta b lishe d tha t the B IA
m ay sum m arily dism i ss [a

nonc itiz e n’ s] a

ppe a l ‘ if [a nonc itiz e n] subm its no
se pa ra te writte n brie f or sta

te m e nt to theB IA an d ina d e quat e ly inform s the B IA of what a spe c ts of the de c ision we re a lle ge dly inc orre c t a

nd why
. ’ ” ). Pe titione r’ s due proc e s s a rgum e nts la c k

m e rit. The IJ ora lly

provide d instruc tions for c om

ple ting the NOA to Pe titione r a t the c l ose of his m e rits he aring. The NOA form p rovide d c le ar and e xplic it writte n wa rnings tha t a pprise d Pe titione r of the c o n se que nc e s of fa i ling to sta t e the re a s ons for his a

ppe a l a nd fa iling to file

a brie f or writte n sta

te m e nt a fte r indic a ting a

n inte nt to do so. Pe titione r a lso re c e ive d

subse que nt notic e of the brie fing sc he dule , whic h
re ite ra te d tha

t the B IA would sum

m arily dism i ss his a

ppe a l if he fa ile d to file a brie f or writte n sta

te m e nt. W e have c onsiste ntly he ld tha t the se notic e proc e dure s are c onstitutiona

lly a de quate . S

e e , e .g., Singh v . Gonzale s , 416 F.3d 1006 (9th C ir. 2005). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3