Yosmany Molina-Carillo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YOSMANY MOLINA-CARILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72982
Agency No. A203-498-774
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 8, 2021
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, CALLAHAN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Yosmany Molina-Carillo, a native and citizen of Cuba, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") order summarily
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s ("IJ") decision denying his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture. We deny the petition.
FILED
SEP 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Petitioner’s
appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E); see Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006,
1009 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating standard of review). Summary dismissal is
appropriate if the petitioner has failed to provide the BIA with "meaningful
guidance" as to the reasons for the appeal, either in his Notice of Appeal or in a
separate brief. Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1992); Casas-Chavez
v. INS, 300 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2002). The BIA is not required to "search
through the record and speculate on what possible errors the [petitioner] claims" or
"decipher general statements of error, unsupported by specific factual or legal
references." Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 820 (9th Cir. 2003)
(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal states only that he "has fear to return to his
native country of Cuba due to his protected ground thas [sic] Political Opinion."
That is a "generalized and conclusory statement" that fails to satisfy the
regulation’s specificity requirement. Toquero, 956 F.2d at 195. We construe pro
se notices liberally. Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, No. 20-70187 (9th Cir. 2021).
But Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal, even read broadly, does not alert the BIA as to
why he believes that the IJ erred. See Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749,
753 (9th Cir. 2004) (describing the specificity requirement).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

2. Petitioner also asks this court to review the IJ’s decision. But because the
BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal on procedural grounds, we lack jurisdiction to
consider the IJ’s underlying denial of Petitioner’s applications for relief. See id. at
752 ("[W]e may not reach the merits of the IJ’s decision here, but are restricted to
reviewing the BIA’s summary dismissal for appropriateness.").
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --