Celia Apaestegui de Abanto v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-60104 Affirmed] Judge: EGJ , Judge: JES , Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 03/07/2014 [13-60104]
Date Filed: 01/14/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
January 14, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
CELIA APAESTEGUI DE ABANTO,
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney General,
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A 088 065 940
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Celia Apaestegui de Abanto, an illegal alien who is a native and citizen
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Date Filed: 01/14/2014
of Peru, has filed a petition for review of the summary dismissal by the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of her appeal of the denial of relief from
removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Summary dismissal
is authorized if, among other things, the appellant indicates on the notice-ofappeal form “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.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E); see Claudio v. Holder, 601 F.3d 316, 318 (5th Cir. 2010).
Apaestegui de Abanto, represented by counsel, indicated on the notice of
appeal form (Form EOIR-26) that she would file a brief but failed to do so.
Further, she did not avail herself of § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E)’s provision for lenity by
explaining her failure to file a brief or statement within the time in which she
was allowed to file the brief or separate statement. Thus, the BIA was within
its “statutorily designated discretion” summarily to dismiss the appeal. See
Rioja v. Ashcroft, 317 F.3d 514, 515−16 (5th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, this court need not reach Apaestegui de Abanto’s contention
that her notice of appeal otherwise apprised the BIA of the grounds for her
appeal. See id. at 516. Nor do we reach her arguments going to the merits of
her claim for relief under the CAT.
The petition for review is DENIED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?