LODGE

Interim Decision # 3039

MATTER OF LODGE

In Deportation Proceedings

A-20112431

Decided by Board December 22, 1987

(1) Oral argument is heard at the discretion of the Board of Immigration Appeals

and will not be granted unless the party appealing has specified the reasons for

the appeal in some meaningful fashion.

(2) The appealing party is not relieved of the responsibility for meaningfully inform-

ing the Board of the reasons for the appeal simply by requesting oral argument in

the Notice of Appeal (Form I 290A).

-

(3)Where the Notice of Appeal is conclusory and does not meaningfully apprise the

Board of the issues on appeal, the appeal may be summarily dismissed under 8

C.F.R. § 3.1(dX1-aXi) (1987) even in cases where oral argument has been requested.

CHARGE: •

Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 241(aX1) [8 U.S.C. §1251(aX1)l—Excludable at entry

under section 212(aX9) [8 U.S.C. § 1182(aX9)}—Crime involv-

ing moral turpitude

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:

Aaron I. Makin, Esquire William F. Jankun

1501 Broadway, Suite 1912 General Attorney

New York, New York 10036

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members

In a decision dated April 16, 1986, an immigration judge found

the respondent deportable based on his own admissions, denied his

applications for adjustment of status and voluntary departure, and

ordered him deported to Jamaica. The respondent appealed. Oral

argument before the Board is denied. The appeal will be dismissed.

In his Notice of Appeal (Form I-290A), the respondent, through

counsel, states the following as the reason for his appeal: "Decision

not based on evidence adduced and discretion is warranted." The

respondent requested oral argument and stated that he would be

filing a written brief or statement. He requested additional briefing

time following receipt of the records. A transcript of the proceed-

ings was prepared and served on counsel and the respondent was

500

Interim Decision #3039

granted additional time to prepare his brief. However, no brief has

ever been submitted.

In Matter of Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354 (3IA 1986), we held that

where only a generalized statement of the reason for an appeal is

given in the Notice of Appeal and no separate brief is filed, the

appeal may be summarily dismissed under 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i)

(1987) for failure to adequately specify the reasons for the appeal.

In this case, unlike in Matter of Valencia, the respondent did re-

quest oral argument. However, we find Matter of Valencia still to

be controlling. See Bonne-Annee v. INS, 810 F.2d 1077 (11th Cir.

1987); Townsend v. United States Department of Justice, INS, 799

F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1986); Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 1364 (9th

Cir. 1985). Simply indicating on the Notice of Appeal that oral ar-

gument is desired does not relieve the respondent of the responsi-

bility for meaningfully informing the Board of the reason for the

appeal. We note in this regard that oral argument may be heard in

a ease at the discretion of the Board. 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(e) (1987). The

purpose of oral argument is to aid the Board by emphasizing and

clarifying arguments that have already been identified as being at

issue in the case. Oral argument will not be granted if the party

appealing has not specified the reasons for the appeal in some

meaningful fashion, ordinarily by a brief or statement in support of

the appeal. It should be self-evident that oral argument is not an

alternative mechanism for initially identifying for the Board and

the opposing party the reasons for the appeal. Where the basis for

the appeal has not been meaningfully identified, the fact that oral

argument is requested will not preclude an appeal from being sum-

marily dismissed under the provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i)

(1987). In the present case the respondent's Notice of Appeal is con-

clusory and does not in any way apprise the Board of the particu-

lar basis for his claim that the immigration judge's decision is

wrong. The case is appropriate for summary dismissal.

ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed under the provi-

sions of 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i) (1987).

Km