Samuel Douglas v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2067
SAMUEL ALEXANDER DOUGLAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 15, 2013 Decided: February 22, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Alexander Douglas, Petitioner Pro Se. Robbin Kinmonth
Blaya, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Alexander Douglas, a native and citizen of
Jamaica, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) summarily dismissing his appeal
from the immigration judge’s order finding him removable. We
deny the petition for review.
Douglas stood convicted of possession of more than ½
ounce but not more than five pounds of marijuana with the intent
to distribute, a felony, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-
248.1 (2009), and possession of a controlled substance with
intent to distribute, in violation of Md. Code Ann., Crim Law
§ 5-602 (LexisNexis 2012). Based on the two convictions,
Douglas was served with a notice to appear (“NTA”), alleging
that he was removable. The immigration judge sustained the
charges in the NTA and found Douglas removable for having been
convicted of an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)
(2006), two crimes of moral turpitude, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), (ii), and a controlled substance
offense, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). We have reviewed the
record and conclude that the immigration judge properly found
Douglas was removable.
The Board’s summary dismissal is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. See Esponda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 453 F.3d 1319, 1321
(11th Cir. 2006); Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th
2
Cir. 2005); Rioja v. Ashcroft, 317 F.3d 514, 515 (5th Cir.
2003). The Board dismissed Douglas’ appeal because he “fail[ed]
to specify the reasons for the appeal on Form EOIR-26 or Form
EOIR-29 (Notices of Appeals) or other document filed therewith”
and he failed to file the brief or statement in support of the
appeal that he indicated would be filed and failed to explain
his failure to do so. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E)
(2012). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the Board
did not abuse its discretion by summarily dismissing the appeal.
In the notice of appeal, Douglas failed to cite an error of law
with the immigration judge’s decision or cite to any authority.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
grant Douglas’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3