Esmeralda Marisol Munoz v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESMERALDA MARISOL MUNOZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72937
Agency No. A099-828-392
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Esmeralda Marisol Munoz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary dismissal of
her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
FILED
MAY 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of
discretion the BIA’s summary dismissal of an appeal. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d
1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Munoz’s
appeal because she failed to file a brief or statement as she indicated on her Notice
of Appeal, and the Notice of Appeal itself lacked sufficient specificity regarding
the grounds for appeal. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2004)
(“The BIA simply cannot evaluate the merits of an appeal unless the petitioner
clearly expresses what he considers to be the factual and/or legal inadequacies of
the IJ’s challenged decision.”). We reject Munoz’s contention that the BIA failed
to sufficiently articulate the reasons for its decision.
We lack jurisdiction to review Munoz’s contentions regarding the merits of
her claims. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 12-72937

-- 2 of 2 --