NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 1 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YESENIA ELIZABETH MONGE No. 21-1221
RAMIREZ; KATHERINE NAYELI DIAZ Agency Nos.
MONGE; ALCIDES USIEL NAVARRO A208-309-899
MONGE; ISRAEL LISANDRO A208-309-900
CASTELLANOS CORDOVA,
A208-309-901
A208-309-913
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 27, 2023**
Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges
Yesenia Ramirez and her family, natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary dismissal of their
appeal from the denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
*
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).
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Petitioners also
seek review of the BIA’s denial of their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing questions of law de novo, Padilla v. Ashcroft,
334 F.3d 921, 923 (9th Cir. 2003), and the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse
of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), we deny
the petition.
1. The BIA did not violate Petitioners’ due process rights when it
summarily dismissed their appeal. When appealing from an Immigration Judge’s
(“IJ”) decision, aliens must “provide meaningful guidance to the BIA by
informing it of the issues contested on appeal; a generalized and conclusory
statement about the proceedings before the IJ does not suffice.” Nolasco-Amaya
v. Garland, 14 F.4th 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2021) (simplified). Aliens can also
provide the reasons supporting the appeal “either in a separate brief or on the
Notice of Appeal itself.” Id.
Petitioners never filed a brief. And their notice of appeal stated only that
the IJ erred in finding that they had not established their claims for asylum and
withholding of removal and erred in denying CAT relief. Those statements “[do]
not indicate which facts were in contention and how the IJ misinterpreted the
evidence.” Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 196 (9th Cir. 1992). Because the notice
of appeal failed to state a specific error, the BIA’s summary dismissal did not
violate Petitioners’ due process rights. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152,
1157 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In cases where the petitioner’s description of the grounds
2 21-1221
for appeal in the Notice of Appeal lacks the requisite specificity, we have
consistently upheld the BIA’s exercise of this authority”).
2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion for
failure to substantially comply with the procedural requirements set out in Matter
of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). To reopen based on an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim, movants must first inform counsel of the allegations
and give him “the opportunity to respond.” Id. at 639. Generally, the BIA does
not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reopen based on a failure to
comply with this requirement. Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 525 (9th Cir.
2000).
In this case, Petitioners argue that they complied with Lozada. But they
failed to notify their previous counsel of their ineffective assistance allegation—
one of Lozada’s requirements. 19 I & N. Dec. at 639. Petitioners’ argument that
they provided notice lacks support in the record. And neither their statement nor
their complaint to the state bar shows that they provided notice to counsel. See
Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 598-99 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that petitioner’s
carbon copy of former counsel on bar complaint was not sufficient notice).
While we have excused noncompliance with Lozada when it is “obvious
and undisputed” from the record that counsel was ineffective, Reyes, 358 F.3d at
597, Petitioners do not argue that we should depart from Lozada’s requirements
here.
PETITION DENIED.
3 21-1221