Armando Miguel Cabello v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO MIGUEL CABELLO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70791
Agency No. A208-080-966
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 9, 2022**
Portland, Oregon
Before: SCHROEDER and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,*** District
Judge.
FILED
JUN 13 2022
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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the
Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Armando Cabello, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to summarily dismiss his appeal
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E) for failure to specify the reasons for
the appeal and for failing to file a separate brief after stating an intent to do so.
In his petition, Mr. Cabello extensively argues the merits of the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) decision to deny his petition for asylum, withholding of removal,
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of
removal. This court’s review, however, is limited to the BIA’s summary dismissal
because the BIA based its decision on the purely procedural grounds set out in 8
C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E). See Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th
Cir. 2004).
The BIA may summarily dismiss an appeal where, as here, the Notice of
Appeal does not specify the reasons for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A).
To satisfy this specificity requirement, a petitioner asserting a legal challenge must
reference supporting authority, and when challenging a decision of fact, the
petitioner must identify the particular details that are contested. See Rojas-Garcia
v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 820 (9th Cir. 2003). Mr. Cabello’s Notice of Appeal
contains generalized statements of law without support and vague references to
erroneous factual conclusions. See Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749, 753
2

-- 2 of 3 --

(9th Cir. 2004). Contrary to Mr. Cabello’s argument in this Court, the pre-hearing
briefing he submitted to the IJ does not satisfy the specificity requirement in
Section 1003.1 because that briefing does not identify any factual or legal errors in
the IJ’s analysis. See id.
The BIA may also summarily dismiss an appeal where petitioners indicate
that they will file a brief or statement in support of their appeal and do not file
these documents, or reasonably explain their failure to do so, by the time the filing
deadline expires. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E). Mr. Cabello indicated in his
Notice of Appeal that he would file a separate written brief or statement. The
Notice of Appeal warned that his appeal could be dismissed if he did not timely
file. Despite this warning, Mr. Cabello did not file a separate brief or statement
and did not explain his failure to do so. The BIA did not err by summarily
dismissing his appeal in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E).
The petition is DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --