Abu-own v. INS ( 1995 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    __________________
    No. 95-60231
    Conference Calendar
    __________________
    ADNAN MUSTAFA ABU-OWN,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
    SERVICE,
    Respondent.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    A70 524 932
    - - - - - - - - - -
    (October 19, 1995)
    Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    This court reviews the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary
    dismissal of an appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i)(A)
    for abuse of discretion.    Medrano-Villatoro v. I.N.S., 
    866 F.2d 132
    , 134 (5th Cir. 1989);    Townsend v. United States Dep't of
    Justice I.N.S., 
    799 F.2d 179
    , 182 (5th Cir. 1986).     In Medrano-
    Villatoro, this court held that:   1) the statement of reasons for
    *
    Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
    that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
    cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
    needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
    profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
    that this opinion should not be published.
    No. 95-60231
    -2-
    appeal must inform the BIA what was wrong about the Immigration
    Judge's decision and why; 2) the statement must specify whether
    the petitioner challenges erroneous findings of fact or law, or
    both; 3) if a question of law is presented, supporting authority
    must be cited, and if the dispute is on the facts, the particular
    details at issue must be identified; and 4) if the denial of
    discretionary relief is in question, the statement must disclose
    whether the alleged error relates to grounds of statutory
    eligibility or the exercise of discretion.   
    Medrano-Villatoro, 866 F.2d at 133-34
    .   Abu-Own's statement of reasons is not
    "sufficiently detailed to allow the BIA to determine the nature
    of the error and to guide the BIA in its preliminary assessment
    of the record."   
    Id. at 134.
    Abu-Own argues that even if the notice of appeal was
    insufficient, the BIA abused its discretion in summarily
    dismissing the appeal for failure to "perfect the Notice of
    Appeal by failing to file a brief" because he was "effectively a
    pro se alien" at the time the brief was due and because a
    reasonable explanation for failure to file a brief was provided,
    namely, a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.      Section
    3.1(d)(1-a)(i)(E) provides, in relevant part that
    [t]he Board may summarily dismiss any appeal
    . . . in any case in which . . . [t]he party
    concerned indicates on Form EOIR-26 or Form
    EOIR-29 that he or she will file a brief or
    statement in support of the appeal and,
    thereafter, does not file such brief or
    statement, or reasonably explain his or her
    failure to do so, within the time set for
    filing.
    No. 95-60231
    -3-
    § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i)(E).   Abu-Own failed to file a brief in apparent
    violation of § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i)(E) after asserting he would do so.
    Abu-Own does not dispute that he asked his counsel not to
    file a brief on his behalf.   Abu-Own's request of his counsel,
    that counsel refrain from filing a brief on his behalf, is not a
    "reasonable explanation" for Abu-Own's failure to file a brief
    for purposes of § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i)(E).   The summary dismissal of
    Abu-Own's appeal was not an abuse of discretion.
    DISMISSED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-60231

Filed Date: 10/12/1995

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014