Opinion ID: 203366
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Summary Affirmance Procedure

Text: Loyo asserts that the BIA abused its discretion in using the summary affirmance procedure in this case, and he challenges this court's jurisdiction over his claim that the BIA violated the summary affirmance procedure. He claims that summary affirmance was not appropriate under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(i) because the lower IJ opinion 1) was not correct, and 2) its errors were not harmless or non-material. We disagree. As we found above, the IJ's decision was correct and supported by substantial evidence. As such, Loyo's statutory argument fails. The BIA was within its statutory discretion to utilize the summary affirmance procedure. See Hoxha, 446 F.3d at 3 The police report he submitted, for example, states only that Loyo was shot while walking. The report does not mention anything about a presidential motorcade or campaign. 4 For example, Loyo was also unable to adequately explain why he testified that his brother came to the United States in 2004 when they were arrested together in 2003. -7- 220-21. The jurisdictional issue pointed out by the parties will have to await resolution on another day. See Feliz v. Gonzáles, 487 F.3d 71, 75-76 (1st Cir. 2007).