Case Name: Mumtaz Hussain RIZVI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-20
Citations: 97 F. App'x 792
Docket Number: No. 02-70969
Parties: Mumtaz Hussain RIZVI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 97
Pages: 792–793

Head Matter:
Mumtaz Hussain RIZVI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-70969,
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 10, 2004.
Decided May 20, 2004.
Mumtaz Hussain Rizvi, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Marion E. Guy-ton, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The docket shall be amended to reflect that John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the sole respondent.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mumtaz Hussain Rizvi, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We construe the Petitioner's appeal liberally because he is pro se, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676 n. 4 (9th Cir.2004), and review a summary dismissal to determine whether it is appropriate, Casas-Chavez v. INS, 300 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition.
Rizvi's appeal was appropriately dismissed for failure to file a brief because the contentions contained in his notice of appeal contained nothing more than generalized statements about the impropriety of the Id's decision. See Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir.1992).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.