Qiuxiao Liu v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QIUXIAO LIU, No. 17-70661
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-349-063
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Qiuxiao Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We
*
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).
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
BIA’s decision to summarily dismiss an appeal and we review de novo claims of
due process violations. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Liu’s appeal
where his notice of appeal failed to identify specific reasons for challenging the
IJ’s decision, and where Liu indicated on his notice of appeal that a separate
written brief would be filed but failed to do so. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A),
(E), 1003.3(b); see also Singh, 416 F.3d at 1013 (summary dismissal was not an
abuse of discretion where notice of appeal lacked sufficient specificity and no brief
was filed after indicating the intent to file a separate written brief).
Liu’s related contention that the BIA violated his right to due process by
summarily dismissing his appeal fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (error is required to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 17-70661