UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

HAJA MAMMIE SOWAH,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 97-1760

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A70-484-200)

Submitted: October 31, 1997

Decided: December 17, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Carrie Crawford, Laurel, Maryland, for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger,

Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, William J. Howard,

Senior Litigation Counsel, Quynh Vu, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,

D.C., for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Haja Mammie Sowah petitions for review of the decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals ("the Board") summarily dismissing

her appeal. Sowah, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, entered the

United States as a nonimmigrant visitor in 1988. In 1994, in an order

to show cause, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS")

charged her with deportability for having remained beyond the sixmonth period authorized by her nonimmigrant visa. Sowah, who was

represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, was found deportable at a deportation hearing. Sowah moved for suspension of deportation.

After taking testimony at a subsequent hearing, the Immigration

Judge ("IJ") found that Sowah was not eligible for suspension of

deportation. The IJ also found that Sowah was not eligible for voluntary departure because she failed to demonstrate good moral character

and ordered her deported. Through counsel, Sowah filed a notice of

appeal with the Board in which her counsel indicated that a brief

would be filed in support of the appeal. No brief was ever filed. The

Board summarily dismissed the under 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(d)(1-a)(I)(A),

(E) (1996), noting that the statements submitted with the notice of

appeal did not apprise the Board of the reasons underlying the appeal,

nor was a separate brief or statement filed. Sowah then petitioned for

review in this Court. We deny the petition for review.

The Board may summarily dismiss an appeal if the appellant: (1)

fails to specify on the notice of appeal the reasons for the appeal or

(2) states that a brief or statement will be filed and does not file such

a brief or statement. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(A), (E); Toquero v.

INS, 956 F.2d 193, 196 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal when

notice of appeal "did not indicate which facts were in contention and

how the [IJ] misinterpreted the evidence"); Lozada v. INS, 857 F.2d

 2
10, 13 (1st Cir. 1988) (summary dismissal proper when Board was

"left guessing at how and why petitioner thought the court had

erred"); Townsend v. INS, 799 F.2d 179, 181-82 (5th Cir. 1986)

(affirming Board's summary dismissal when notice of appeal merely

claimed that alien sufficiently established his well founded fear of

persecution).

Section 3.1(d)(1-a)(I)(A) requires the appellant to do more than

merely assert that the IJ was in error. The appellant must give an indication to the Board of "what was wrong about the immigration

judge's decision and why." Medrano-Villatoro , 866 F.2d at 133-34.

If the issue is one of law, supporting authority should be included. If

the issue is fact based, there should be reference to the "particular

details contested." Toquero, 956 F.2d at 195.

Sowah contends that her notice of appeal sufficiently stated "specific facts" and put the Board on notice that she was contesting the

IJ's "interpretation of the facts and his application of legal standards

of proof." On the contrary, Sowah's notice of appeal merely stated

that the IJ erred in making certain findings. Sowah does not give any

indication as to whether the IJ's alleged errors were due to a failure

to correctly apply the law or to fully consider all the facts. There was

no statement regarding any facts that may have been overlooked, nor

was there any reference to any legal standard. Clearly, the notice of

appeal did not state why the IJ was wrong. Because the Board was

not obligated to engage in speculation or construct sufficient arguments for Sowah, dismissal was proper and not an abuse of discretion.

Sowah's failure to file a brief or statement prior to the filing deadline

also provided sufficient grounds for the Board's summary dismissal

of the appeal. See Toquero, 956 F.2d at 196.

For these reasons, we deny the petition for review. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

 3