Saha v. Gonzales, (2nd Cir. 2008)
Linked as:
Text
06-3079-ag
Saha v. Gonzales
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED
AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND
FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT
CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION
MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: "(SUMMARY ORDER)."
UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE
WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV), THE
PARTY CITING THE SUMMARY ORDER MUST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH
THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE
AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT
DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 18 th day of June, two thousand eight.
PRESENT: HON. DENNIS JACOBS,
Chief Judge,
HON. ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
HON. BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
Circuit Judges.
X
ANAL SAHA,
Petitioner,
-v.- 06-3079-ag
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, *
Respondent.
X
FOR PETITIONER: BRUNO JOSEPH BEMBI, Hempstead, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: JESSE M. BLESS, (Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division and David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, on the brief), Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review be DENIED.
Anal Saha, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of a June 1, 2006 order of the BIA, In re Saha, No. A72-778-711 (B.I.A. June 1, 2006), which summarily dismissed his appeal for failing to submit a brief after indicating that he would. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E) ("A single Board member or panel may summarily dismiss any appeal or portion of any appeal in any case in which . . . [t]he party concerned indicates on Form EOIR-26 or Form EOIR-29 that he or she will file a brief or statement in support of the appeal and, thereafter, does not file such brief or statement, or reasonably explain his or her failure to do so, within the time set for filing[.]").
We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
Saha contends that the BIA was precluded from summarily dismissing his appeal for failure to file a brief because the statement in his notice of appeal complied with the BIA's specificity requirements, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(b); In re Valencia, 19 I. & N. Dec. 354, 355 (B.I.A. 1986). We do not consider whether the BIA may summarily dismiss an appeal where the notice of appeal satisfies the BIA's specificity requirements because Saha's notice of appeal fell short of those requirements. 1 Saha (1) failed to "state whether the alleged error [in denying discretionary relief] relate[d] to 1 Nor do we address any claim that petitioner may have for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure by his then attorney, Roland Gell, to submit a brief or even to reasonably explain his failure to do so. statutory grounds of eligibility or to the exercise of discretion[,]" 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(b), and (2) included no " discussion of the particular details contested" with regard to the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility finding, Valencia, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 355.
We have considered Saha's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.
FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK By:
* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales as respondent in this case.
Sponsored links
