Interim Decision #3077 

MATTER OF CESPEDES 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-26642351 

Decided by Board September 20, 1988 

(1) A record of proceeding forwarded to the Board without a transcript of the proceedings pursuant to a motion for summary dismissal of the appeal under Matter 

of 2orr4 19 I&N Dec. 18 (BIA 1984), must include a transcript of the immigration 

judge's decision in its entirety; the forwarding of the "order" and "further order" 

portions of the immigration judgo'c decision alone is insufficient. 

(2) The mere statement on a Notice of Appeal (Form 1-290A) that a brief will be 

filed upon receipt of a transcript of the proceeding does not absolve the appealing 

party of the responsibility of adequately identifying the reasons for appeal on the 

Notice of Appeal. 

(3) Where a motion for summary dismissal of an appeal has been made, the appellant can respond in various manners: (1) argument can be made that the statements in the Notice of Appeal adequately set forth the reasons for the appeal; (2) 

the statement on appeal can be elaborated upon to meaningfully identify the reasons for appeal; (3) a brief in support of the appeal can be submitted; or, (4) if 

there are unusual reasons why a more explicit statement of the reasons for 

appeal cannot be provided until a transcript is prepared, they should be clearly 

identified. 

(4) Absent a meaningful statement of the reasons for an appeal or an adequate explanation of why a transcript of the proceedings is necessary.before such reasons 

can be set forth, there is no appropriate reason to extend appellate briefing time 

beyond the period fixed by regulation. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 24104(2) [8 U.S.C. § 1251(aX2)l —Entered without inspoodon 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: 

Samuel Jay Levine, Esquire 

Law Offices of Levine & Sobral, P.C. 

4001 North 9th Street, Suite 224 

Arlington, Virginia 22203 

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Gaylyn Boone 

General Attorney 

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

7Rti 
Interim Decision #3077 

In a decision dated February 22, 1988, the immigration judge 

found the respondent deportable as charged, denied his applications for political asylum and withholding of deportation, but 

granted him the privilege of voluntary departure. The respondent 

appealed. The record will be returned to the Office of the Immigration Judge for further action. 

Subsequent to the February 22, 1988, decision of the immigration 

judge, the respondent, through counsel, filed an appeal that reads 

in its entirety: "The denial of constitutional due process. A brief 

will be submitted in a reasonable period of time after counsel has 

received a transcript of the proceedings." 

On March 2, 1988, the Immigration and Naturalization Service 

filed a motion for summary dismissal of the appeal without a transcript of the proceeding being prepared. See Matter of Torre, 19 

I&N Dec. 18 (BIA 1984); Matter of Gamboa, 14 I&N Dec. 244 (BIA 

1972). In support of its motion, the Service argued that the respondent's appeal was ripe for summary dismissal pursuant to 8 

C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a) (1988) because it was stated in general language, 

failed to specify the aspect of the immigration judge's decision 

deemed incorrect and for what reasons, and was frivolous and filed 

for the purposes of delay. 

The Service's request to forward the record to the Board for possible consideration without the preparation of a transcript was 

granted by the immigration judge on March 4, 1988, prior to the 

respondent having an opportunity to respond to the request. It is 

not clear that the respondent was ever advised that the request 

had been approved. The record of proceedings was then forwarded 

to the Board without a transcript of either the proceedings or the 

immigration judge's decision. 

On March 15, 1988, the respondent filed an opposition to the 

Service's request. The basis for the opposition reads in its entirety: 

"It is asserted that the government is in error in that due process 

is a matter for this Board of Immigration Appeals to consider." 

The procedures regarding requests to forward records on appeal 

to the Board without a transcript of the proceedings being prepared are set forth in Matter of Torre, supra, and Matter of 

Gamboa, supra. Both decisions note that the record forwarded to 

the Board should include the immigration judge's "order." In this 

case, the record includes what is designated as an "order supplementing the oral decision of the immigration judge," but not a 

transcript of the oral decision itself. The term "order," when used 

in Matter of Torre and Matter of Gamboa, refers to the immigration judge's decision, not simply the "order" and "further order" 

portions of the decision. Accordingly, it is necessary to return the 

'701 
Interim Decision #3077 

file to the Office of the Immigration Judge so that the decision can 

be transcribed and included in the record. 

We note, however, that the statement on the Notice of Appeal 

(Form I-290A) in this case is so general as to provide no guidance 

as to the reasons for taking the appeal. By stating only that there 

was a "denial of constitutional due process," the respondent has 

not meaningfully identified the aspect of the immigration judge's 

decision that is challenged and the reasons underlying the challenge. To review this case, it would be necessary to first review the 

record and then speculate on what possible errors the respondent 

claims (i.e., it would be necessary to construct the reasons for 

appeal before they could be addressed). See Matter of Valencia, 19 

I&N Dec. 354 BIA 1986); Matter of Holguin, 13 I&N Dec. 423 (BIA 

1969). Therefore, this was an appropriate case for the Service to request that the record be forwarded to the Board for consideration 

for summary dismissal without a transcript being prepared. 

Where such a request is made, an appellant can respond in various manners: (1) argument can be made that the statements on the 

Notice of Appeal do adequately set forth the reasons for the appeal; 

(2) the statement on appeal can be elaborated on to meaningfully 

identify the reasons for the appeal; (3) a brief in support of the 

appeal can be submitted; or, (4) if there are unusual reasons why a 

more explicit statement of the reasons for appeal cannot be provided until a transcript is prepared, they should be clearly identified. 

The mere statement on the Notice of Appeal that a brief will be 

filed upon receipt of a transcript of the proceeding does not absolve 

an appellant of the responsibility of adequately identifying the reasons for appeal on the Notice of Appeal. We note that a brief on 

appeal is due "within the time fixed for appeal," unless an additional period is designated. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.3(c) (1988)- Absent a 

meaningful statement of the reasons for appeal or an adequate explanation of why a transcript of the proceedings is necessary before 

such reasons can be set forth, there is no appropriate reason to 

extend the briefing time. We note that it would be an unusual case 

where an appellant cannot set forth a meaningful statement of the 

reasons for appeal before the transcript is prepared. Here, the respondent's March 15, 1988, reply to the Service's request does not 

provide any further meaningful guidance as to the reasons for 

appeal. 

In this case, the record is being returned for the inclusion of a 

transcript of the immigration judge's oral decision. Upon service of 

the decision, the respondent is granted 10 days in which to respond 

to the Service's Torre request in view of the standards set forth 

above. If a response is filed, the immigration judge should further 

7A9. 
Interim Decision #3077 

review the Service request under the procedures set out in Matter 

of Torre. If no farther response is filed, the record should be returned to the Board. 

ORDER: The record is returned to the Office of the Immigration Judge for further action in accordance with the foregoing decision.