2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-9-2003 

# S in gh v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2965

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" S in gh v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 381. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/381NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
Nos. 02-2965
LAKWI NDER SINGH, Petitioner

v. JOHN AS HCROFT , A TTORNE Y GENERAL OF THE UNIT ED STA TES OF AMERI CA, Respondent
On Petiti on for Review of a Decisi on of the Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals (Board No. A78-520-462-York)
Submitte d United Thir d Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 8, 2003 BE FO RE : NY GA AR D, S M ITH , and GR EE NB ER G, Circu it Judges (Fil ed: July 9, 2003)
OPI NION
GR EE NB ER G, Circu it Judge
. This matt er comes on befor e this court on petiti oner Lakwinder Si ngh’s pet iti on for revi ew of a decisi on of the Board of I mmigrati on Appeals date d June 17, 2002,2

dismis sing an appea l from an orde r of an immigr ation j udge dated January 10, 2002, denying Singh’s appl icat ion for as ylum and the withhol ding of removal . The basi s of the Board’s decision in its entirety was as follows: PER CU RIAM . The appealis di smissed. The appellant checked Box 6 on the Noti ce of Appeal (Form EOIR-26) i ndicat ing that a separat e writt en brief

or statement would be fi led in a dditi on to the reaso ns fo r app eal acc om panying the N otice o f A ppea l. Bloc k 6 is immediate ly

followed by

a clear warning that

the appealmay be subj ect to summary

dismis sal i f the appel lant indicat es that such a bri ef or statem ent w ill be filed and, ‘w ithin the time se t for filin g, you fa il to file the bri ef or st atement and do not reasonably expl ain such fa ilur e.’ The appe llant w as gra nted th e opp ortun ity to subm it a brief or statem ent in supp ort of th e app eal. H ow ever, th e reco rd ind icates th at app ellant d id ‘not file such b rief or statemen t, or reasonably explain h is or her failure to d o so , wit hin the ti me set f or f iling .’ 8 C .F.R . § 3.1 (d)(2 )(i)(D ). Moreover, upon revi ew of the recor d, we are not persuaded t

hat the Imm igra tion Jud ge’ s ultim ate re solu tion of th is ca se w as in erro r. Ac cord ingly, we find th at sum mary dis missa l is appr opriate pursu ant to the provisions o f 8 C.F .R. § 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D ). Subsequentl y, Singh moved before t he Board for rec onsider ation of its decisi on to dis miss the appeal but the Board deni ed the moti on on October 2, 2002. Inasmuch as Sing h has not p etitioned for re view of the Oc tober 2 , 2002 decisio n, w e do n ot revie w it in our dispo sition of this matter. In thes e pro ceed ings S ingh conte nds th at the B oard “did n ot actu ally summ arily dismis s [his] appeal, but affi rmed the deci sion of t he immigration judge wit hout opini on.” Br. at 11. Thus, he argues t

hat he “i s enti tled to rais e issue s in this appealrelative to t he

me rits o f his ” cla ims for asylum and wit hho ldin g of rem ova l. Id . at

11-12. The Att orney Gen eral answ ers that we sh ould aff irm becau se Singh has failed to ch allenge the B oard’s3

dismis sal of hi s appeal and, in any event , the dismis sal was appr opriat e. We will deny

the pet iti on for revi ew. It i s clear to us that the Board dismis sed Si ngh ’s ap pe al be caus e h e f ai le d t o c omp ly

wit h the ru le s appl ic ab le to it . Wh il e we recogniz e that

at the outset

of his br ief i n this court Singh rais ed as an is sue the ques tion of w hethe r the B oard ’s dec ision su mm arily dismiss ing h is app eal be caus e of h is attorne y’s failure to file a b rief w as erro neou s and contra ry to law, b r. at 5, sub sequ ently in his argument he changed his focus to contend that the Board had adjudicated his case on th e me rits. Thu s, Sing h has not ch alleng ed pr oper ly the basis for the d ismissa l of his app eal. See Dillinger v. Cat erpil lar, Inc. , 959 F.2d 430, 447 (3d Cir. 199 2). In an y event, the Bo ard su rely did no t err in dis missin g the a ppea l. Afte r all, Singh indi cated on Form EOIR-26 that he would fil e a brie f or st atement but did not do so. Furt hermore, the form i ndicat ed the poss ible c onsequences of a f ailure to fi le a bri ef or statem ent so he sh ould not h ave b een s urprise d at w hat ha ppen ed w hen h e did n ot file either d ocum ent. We are aw are, of cou rse, that in addition to dism issing the appe al the Boa rd observed t

hat it had not been pur suaded “that the I mmigrati on Judge’s ultimat e resolution of this case was in er

ror. ” That obser

vation, however, was not t he basis for it s decis ion as it then in dicate d that: “ [a]cc ordin gly, we find tha t sum mary dis missa l is appr opriate pursuant to the provisi ons of 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d) (2)(i )(D).” That sect ion provi des that the Board may summari ly

dismis s an appealif a party stat ed on Form EOIR-26 that “he or4

she willfile a brief

or statement i n support of the appeal ” but did not do so or give a reasonabl e explanation for t he failure. Thus, inasmuch as t hat is what happened and the Board anchored t

he dismis sal t o that provisi on, it is cl ear that the Boar d dismis sed the appeal for

proceduralreasons t

hat are both unassa iled and unassai lable
. For th e f or eg oi ng rea so ns we wi llde ny th e p et itio n f

orre vi ew.

/s/ Morton I. Greenberg Circuit

Judge