Interim Decision # 3039 

MATTER OF LODGE 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-20112431 

Decided by Board December 22, 1987 

(1) Oral argument is heard at the discretion of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

and will not be granted unless the party appealing has specified the reasons for 

the appeal in some meaningful fashion. 

(2) The appealing party is not relieved of the responsibility for meaningfully informing the Board of the reasons for the appeal simply by requesting oral argument in 

the Notice of Appeal (Form I-290A). 

(3) Where the Notice of Appeal is conclusory and does not meaningfully apprise the 

Board of the issues on appeal, the appeal may be summarily dismissed under 8 

C.F.R. § 3.1(dX1-aXi) (1987) even in cases where oral argument has been requested. 

CHARGE: • 

Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 241(aX1) [8 U.S.C. §1251(aX1)l—Excludable at entry 

under section 212(aX9) [8 U.S.C. § 1182(aX9)}—Crime involving moral turpitude 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Aaron I. Makin, Esquire William F. Jankun 

1501 Broadway, Suite 1912 General Attorney 

New York, New York 10036 

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

In a decision dated April 16, 1986, an immigration judge found 

the respondent deportable based on his own admissions, denied his 

applications for adjustment of status and voluntary departure, and 

ordered him deported to Jamaica. The respondent appealed. Oral 

argument before the Board is denied. The appeal will be dismissed. 

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

counsel, states the following as the reason for his appeal: "Decision 

not based on evidence adduced and discretion is warranted." The 

respondent requested oral argument and stated that he would be 

filing a written brief or statement. He requested additional briefing 

time following receipt of the records. A transcript of the proceedings was prepared and served on counsel and the respondent was 

500 
Interim Decision #3039 

granted additional time to prepare his brief. However, no brief has 

ever been submitted. 

In Matter of Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354 (3IA 1986), we held that 

where only a generalized statement of the reason for an appeal is 

given in the Notice of Appeal and no separate brief is filed, the 

appeal may be summarily dismissed under 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i) 

(1987) for failure to adequately specify the reasons for the appeal. 

In this case, unlike in Matter of Valencia, the respondent did request oral argument. However, we find Matter of Valencia still to 

be controlling. See Bonne-Annee v. INS, 810 F.2d 1077 (11th Cir. 

1987); Townsend v. United States Department of Justice, INS, 799 

F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1986); Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 1364 (9th 

Cir. 1985). Simply indicating on the Notice of Appeal that oral argument is desired does not relieve the respondent of the responsibility for meaningfully informing the Board of the reason for the 

appeal. We note in this regard that oral argument may be heard in 

a ease at the discretion of the Board. 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(e) (1987). The 

purpose of oral argument is to aid the Board by emphasizing and 

clarifying arguments that have already been identified as being at 

issue in the case. Oral argument will not be granted if the party 

appealing has not specified the reasons for the appeal in some 

meaningful fashion, ordinarily by a brief or statement in support of 

the appeal. It should be self-evident that oral argument is not an 

alternative mechanism for initially identifying for the Board and 

the opposing party the reasons for the appeal. Where the basis for 

the appeal has not been meaningfully identified, the fact that oral 

argument is requested will not preclude an appeal from being summarily dismissed under the provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i) 

(1987). In the present case the respondent's Notice of Appeal is conclusory and does not in any way apprise the Board of the particular basis for his claim that the immigration judge's decision is 

wrong. The case is appropriate for summary dismissal. 

ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed under the provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i) (1987). 

Km