No: 02-2065 SLAVOMIR PROKIC v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States of America On

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 02-2065
SLAVOMIR PROKIC,
Appellant
v.
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
of the United States of America
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
A70 704 189
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 14, 2003
Before: ROTH, FUENTES, and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: January 29, 2003 )
OPINION OF THE COURT

-- 1 of 5 --

2
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
Slavomir Prokic ("Prokic") petitions this Court to review the order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals ("BIA") to dismiss his appeal for failing to file a brief after he
indicated that he would do so. Because Prokic failed to properly raise this issue in his brief
and because 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D) (2001) provides for summary dismissal if a brief or
statement is not filed after a party has indicated that he or she will do so, we affirm the
decision of the BIA.
I.
Prokic is a 63-year-old native and citizen of Serbia, in the Republic of Yugoslavia,
who was admitted to the United States on December 9, 1992. He entered on a six month
visitor visa and never left. Instead, Prokic filed an application for asylum, which was
eventually referred to an immigration judge. On or about September 4, 1997, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") placed Prokic in removal proceedings for
having remained in the United States longer than permitted. On April 14, 1998, an
immigration judge found Prokic removable as charged and ruled that he was ineligible for
asylum. However, the immigration judge granted Prokic voluntary departure.
Prokic filed a notice of appeal with the BIA and indicated that he would file a brief.
The BIA set a briefing schedule on September 4, 1998, which required Prokic's brief to be
filed by October 5, 1998. On September 11, 1998, the INS filed a notice that it concurred
with the decision of the immigration judge and would not be filing a formal brief. Prokic
did not respond to the notice and failed to file a brief. On March 22, 2002, the BIA

-- 2 of 5 --

3
summarily dismissed the appeal because Prokic had failed to file a brief and failed to
explain his failure to do so.
II.
We have jurisdiction to review the BIA's final order of removal pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the BIA's decision unless the BIA defers to the decision
of the immigration judge. See Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 549 (3d Cir. 2001).
III.
Prokic argues that he produced sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear
of persecution in Serbia. However, as we have stated, the BIA dismissed Prokic's appeal
for failure to file a brief. Specifically, the BIA ruled:
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant checked Box 6 on the Notice of
Appeal (Form EOIR-26) indicating that a separate written brief or statement
would be filed in addition to the reasons for appeal accompanying the Notice
of Appeal. Block 6 is immediately followed by a clear warning that the
appeal may be subject to summary dismissal if the appellant indicates that
such a brief or statement will be filed and, 'within the time set for filing, you
fail to file the brief or statement and do not reasonably explain such failure.'
The appellant was granted the opportunity to submit a brief or statement in
support of the appeal. However, the record indicates that appellant did 'not
file such brief or statement, or reasonably explain his or her failure to do so,
within the time set for filing.' 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D).
In order for Prokic to prevail on this appeal, he must first establish that the BIA
erred in dismissing his appeal for failure to submit a brief. "An issue is waived unless a
party raises it in its opening brief." See Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am. v. Foster Wheeler
Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir.1994). Because Prokic neglected to put forth any
argument challenging the BIA's summary dismissal of his appeal, he has waived his

-- 3 of 5 --

4
challenge to the BIA's decision.
However, even if Prokic were to have raised this issue in his brief, we would affirm
the decision of the BIA. "An appellant's failure to file a brief is a serious procedural
default, and, at least when the appellant is represented by counsel, as in the present case, or
declines an offer of counsel, dismissal is an appropriate sanction." Stroe v. INS, 256 F.3d
498, 499 (7th Cir. 2001). Notice of Appeal, Form EOIR-26, contains a clear warning that
an appeal may be subject to summary dismissal if the appellant indicates that a brief will be
filed and then fails to file a brief within the allotted time and without explanation.
Dismissal under such circumstances is appropriate pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D)
(2001). Prokic fails to set forth any explanation for why he failed to comply with the clear
directive contained in the Notice of Appeal and the Code of Federal Regulations. As a
result, based on the BIA's straightforward application of the relevant code provision, we
find no reason to grant the petition to review the order.
IV.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the Order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
_____________________________
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Julio M. Fuentes
Circuit Judge

-- 5 of 5 --