Jose Israel Mendez-Pineda v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ISRAEL MENDEZ-PINEDA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71993
Agency No. A095-010-209
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jose Israel Mendez-Pineda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 11-71993
summary dismissal of an appeal, and 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 by summarily dismissing Mendez-
Pineda’s appeal where he did not file a separate appeal brief or statement as
indicated on his Notice of Appeal and he failed to specify the reasons for the
appeal on his Notice of Appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E); Garcia-
Cortez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 749, 753 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The Notice of Appeal is
sufficiently specific if the alien explains in a short and plain statement exactly how
and why the IJ erred.”).
We are unpersuaded by Mendez-Pineda’s contention that the BIA’s
summary dismissal denied him due process because he did not receive notice of the
briefing schedule. Mendez-Pineda did not provide any evidence to rebut the
presumption that the BIA’s briefing schedule notice was properly mailed to his
address of record. See Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --