Case Name: Manuel Salvador SANTOS-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-02
Citations: 92 F. App'x 567
Docket Number: No. 02-70711
Parties: Manuel Salvador SANTOS-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HALL, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 92
Pages: 567–568

Head Matter:
Manuel Salvador SANTOS-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-70711.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 31, 2004.
Decided April 2, 2004.
Willie M.J. Curtis, Dean, University of Arizona, College of Law, Tucson, AZ, Manuel Salvador Santos-Perez Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Michelle Thresher, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HALL, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Manuel Salvador Santos-Perez appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") final order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We affirm.
We review the BIA's summary dismissals for appropriateness. Casas-Chavez v. INS, 300 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.2002). On his Notice of Appeal form (EOIR-26), the petitioner did not set forth the specific grounds for his appeal. Instead, he offered some conclusory statements and indicated that he would file a brief in support of his appeal. However, he neither filed a brief nor offered an explanation for his failure to do so. Summary dismissal was therefore appropriate under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E) (formerly 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D)). See Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 2004 WL 527859, at *3 (9th Cir. March 18, 2004).
PETITION 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.