CHAVEZ v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-11No. No. 20-70759

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied because the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Chavez's appeal.

Roberto Marquez Chavez, a Salvadoran citizen, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that summarily dismissed his appeal of an immigration judge's removal order. Chavez had sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The core dispute centered on whether Chavez's prior conviction constituted an aggravated felony drug offense making him deportable.

The court found no abuse of discretion in the BIA's summary dismissal. Chavez's attorney contradicted itself by first claiming the immigration judge erred regarding the felony conviction while simultaneously acknowledging that Chavez had admitted the factual allegations in his removal notice and conceded he was removable. The attorney's appeal brief offered only vague, conclusory language without substantive explanation for why Chavez should be allowed to withdraw his earlier concession of removability. The court determined that the legal standard for summary dismissal of appeals was satisfied under the applicable immigration regulations.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the BIA properly summarily dismissed an appeal when the petitioner's counsel contradicted earlier admissions
Standard for summary dismissal of immigration appeals with only generalized and conclusory arguments
Effect of prior concession of removability on grounds for appeal

Procedural posture

Chavez sought judicial review of the BIA's summary dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order and denials of asylum and other relief applications.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Roberto Marquez Chavez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges (“IJ”) order of removal and denial of Petitioners applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion, Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005), in summarily dismissing Petitioners appeal. Counsels contention, in the Notice of Appeal, that the IJ erred by finding that Petitioners conviction was an aggravated felony drug offense contradicts counsels earlier statement that Petitioner admitted the factual allegations in the Notice to Appear and conceded the charge of removability. The Notice of Appeal fails to offer support for why Petitioner is able to retract his concession of removability, other than a “generalized and conclusory” statement about how the IJ erred. Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1992). And the standard for summarily dismissing an appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A) or (E) was otherwise met. Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 819–20 (9th Cir. 2003); cf. Casas-Chavez v. INS, 300 F.3d 1088, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2002).

PETITION DENIED.