Court Opinion

ID: 9889873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 18:00:36.209514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.166140
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 11 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERNANDO MARTINEZ HERNANDEZ,                    No. 22-1635
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A216-143-476
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                            Submitted October 6, 2023**
                               Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: RAWLINSON and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON, District
Judge.***

      Fernando Martinez Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      ***
             The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for
the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his

application for cancellation of removal. “We review for abuse of discretion the

BIA’s summary dismissal of an appeal.” Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, 14 F.4th

1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2021). “But whether the summary dismissal violated a

petitioner’s due process rights is a question of law that we review de novo.” Id.

As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny

the petition for review.

      The BIA summarily dismissed Martinez Hernandez’s appeal on the grounds

that his notice of appeal failed to meaningfully apprise the BIA of the reasons for

his challenge to the IJ’s decision and he failed to file a separate written brief or

statement after he checked the box on his notice of appeal indicating that he

intended to do so. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E). Martinez Hernandez

argues that the BIA’s summary dismissal violated his due process rights because

his pro se notice of appeal, construed liberally, was sufficiently specific to apprise

the BIA of the issue challenged on appeal. See Nolasco-Amaya, 14 F.4th at 1013

(“Although we have applied consistently the BIA’s strict specificity requirement,

we also construe liberally claims raised by pro se petitioners before the BIA.”).

      However, even if the BIA violated Martinez Hernandez’s due process rights

by summarily dismissing his appeal, Martinez Hernandez failed to discuss in his

opening brief how he was prejudiced by the dismissal. See Grigoryan v. Barr, 959

                                          2                                    22-1635
F.3d 1233, 1240 (9th Cir. 2020) (To prevail on a due process claim, the petitioner

must show “substantial prejudice,” i.e., that “the outcome of the proceeding may

have been affected by the alleged violation.” (citation omitted)); Singh v. Ashcroft,

361 F.3d 1152, 1157 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Issues not raised in an appellant’s

opening brief are typically deemed waived.”).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        3                                   22-1635