872 F.2d 429
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Hatef MORIDI, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION,
Respondent.
No. 88-7002.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted* Jan. 31, 1989.
Decided March 24, 1989.
Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, and POOLE and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Hatef Moridi (Moridi) contends that the BIA erred in dismissing his appeal under 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.1(d)(1-a) for failure to specify the reasons for the appeal. He claims that his notice of appeal form was sufficiently specific to notify the BIA of the nature of his appeal. This contention lacks merit.
The BIA may summarily dismiss an appeal in which a petitioner fails to specify the reasons for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.1(d)(1-a) (1988). "[S]ummary dismissal by the BIA is appropriate if an alien submits no separate written brief or statement to the BIA and inadequately informs the BIA of 'what aspects of the IJ's decision were alleged incorrect and why.' " Martinez-Zelaya v. INS, 841 F.2d 294, 296 (9th Cir.1988) (quoting Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 1364, 1365 (9th Cir.1985)).
Moridi's statement in his notice of appeal to the BIA was too conclusory to identify the basis of his appeal from the IJ's denial of his political asylum application. The statement merely indicated that Moridi disagreed with the IJ's denial of his application for political asylum. Moreover, although Moridi indicated in his notice of appeal that he would file a brief in support of his appeal, he failed to do so. Because Moridi's conclusory statements in his notice of appeal failed to specify the reasons for the appeal and because he failed to file a brief, the BIA's summary dismissal was "appropriate" under 8 C.F.R. 3.1(d)(1-a) (1988). See Martinez-Zelaya, 841 F.2d at 296; Reyes-Mendoza, 774 F.2d at 1365.
The petition for review is DENIED.