Court Opinion

ID: 1002064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:05:30.860079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:15.254288
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MARGARET MODUPE OGUNSUYI, a/k/a
Margaret Adewolu,
Petitioner,

v.                                                                  No. 00-1054

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
(A70-799-304)

Submitted: July 10, 2000

Decided: July 28, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Randall C. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Vir-
ginia, for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Joseph F. Ciolino,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPART-
MENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Margaret Ogunsuyi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for
review from the Board of Immigration Appeals' (Board) order affirm-
ing the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying her applica-
tions for suspension of deportation, asylum, and withholding
deportation. We deny the petition for review.

Ogunsuyi concedes that she no longer qualifies for suspension of
deportation because she had not continuously resided in the United
States for seven years at the time deportation proceedings were initi-
ated against her. See Appiah v. INS, 202 F.3d 704 (4th Cir. 2000),
petition for cert. filed June 15, 2000 (No. 99-10039).

Addressing Ogunsuyi's applications for asylum and withholding
deportation, the Board may summarily dismiss any appeal in which
the appellant fails to specify the reason for the appeal on the notice
of appeal or on another document filed with the Board. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 3.1(d)(1-a)(i)(A) (1999); Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 195-96 (9th
Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal when notice of appeal did not indicate
how the IJ misinterpreted the evidence). Ogunsuyi's appeal to the
Board as to asylum and withholding was deficient under 8 C.F.R.
§ 3.1(d)(1-a)(i)(A) because it failed to specify what law or regulation
was misapplied or which facts were not considered. Therefore, the
Board's dismissal was proper, and we deny the petition for review.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

                    2