VALENCIA

Interim Decision # 3006




                          MATTER OF VALENCIA

                         In Deportation Proceedings

                                   A-24305559

                   Decided by Board February .14, 1986

   Where the respondent presented a generalized statement on the Notice of Appeal
(Form I-290A), failed to express the specific rationale for his conclusory assertions,
filed no separate written brief, and did not seek oral argument to further explain
the alleged error, his appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 § 3.1(d)(1-
aXi) (1985) for failure to adequately specify the reasons for the appealCHARGE:
  Order Act of 1252 — Sec. Z41(aX2) j8 U.S.C. § 1251(aX2)] —Nonimmigrant —remained longer than permitted

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:                           ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
  Louis Sortoridos, Esquire                          Tprusits R. Cluer-rern
 152 Central Avenue                                  General Attorney
 Jersey City, New Jersey 07306

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


  In a decision dated September 25, 1985, the immigration judge
found the respondent deportable on his own admissions under section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

(a)(2) (1982), as a nonimmigrant crewman who remained
longer than permitted, and granted him voluntary departure in
lieu of deportation. The respondent has appealed frora that decision. The appeal will be summarily dismissed pursuant to 

(d)(1-a)(i) (1985).
   On his Notice of Appeal (Form I-290A), the respondent, through
counsel, states the following as his reason for this appeal: "I respectfully submit that the hearing officer erred in that of the appellant [sic] burden of proving a well-founded fear of persecution in
his native Nicaragua." The respondent also specified on the Notice
of Appeal that he does not desire oral argument and that he is not
filing a separate written brief in support of his appeal.
   We are unable to determine from the respondent's stated reason
for his appeal whether the error he alleges relates to the particular
                                         354
                                             Interim Decision #3006

facts of his case, the law applied to them by the immigration judge,
 or both. By presenting only a generalized statement without filing
a supporting brief to explain the specific aspects of the immigration judges order that the respondent considers to be incorrect, he
has failed to meaningfully identify the reasons for taking an
appeal. In order to review the appeal, it would therefore be necessary for the Board to search through the record and speculate on
what possible errors the respondent claims.
   The regulations provide for summary dismissal of an appeal
where the party concerned fails to specify the reasons for the
appeal. 

(d)(1-a)(i) (1985). In Matter of Holguin, 

 (BIA. 1969), we noted that this regulation was designed to
permit us to deal promptly with appeals where the reasons given
for the appeal are inadequate to apprise the Board of the particular basis for the alien's claim that the immigration judge's decision
is wrong. We find that the respondent's appeal is one which warrants summary dismissal for failure to state with specificity the
grounds few taking the appeal. See Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 

 (9th Cir. 1985).
   It is essential to the Board's adjudication of an appeal that the
reasons given on the Notice of Appeal be as detailed as possible so
that the alleged error can be identified and addressed. Without a.
specific statement, the Board can only guess at how the alien disagrees with the immigration judge's decision. It is therefore insufficient to merely assert that the immigration judge improperly found
that deportability had been established or denied an application for
relief from deportation. See Reyes Mendoza v. INS, supra. Where
eligibility for discretionary relief is at issue, it should be stated
whether the error relates to grounds of statutory eligibility or to
the exercise of discretion. Furthermore, it should be clear whether
the alleged impropriety in the decision lies with the immigration
judge's interpretation of the facts or his application of legal standards. Where a question of law is presented, supporting authority
should be included, and where the dispute is on the facts, there
should be a discussion of the particular details contested.
  Although the regulations only refer to the reasons that must be
stated on. the Notice of Appeal, the contentions made by an alien
on appeal are of course best presented in a brief setting forth his
arguments. Depending on the complexity of the issues raised, a
brief may be essential to an adequate presentation of the appeal. In
all cases, however, the reasons for an appeal must be meaningfully
identified on the Notice of Appeal.
  The respondent has stated only that the immigration judge erred
in finding no well-founded fear of persecution. He has chosen not to
                                 355
Interim Decision #3006

submit a brief to enlighten us as to the specific rationale for his
conclusory assertions and did not request an opportunity for oral
argument. Under these circumstances, we find that summary dismissal of the appeal is appropriate. Accordingly, the appeal will be
dismissed.
   ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
  FURTHER ORDER: Pursuant to the immigration judge's
order and in accordance with our decision in Matter of Chouliaris,
16 1&N Dec. 168 (BIA 1977), the respondent is permitted to depart
from the United States voluntarily within 30 days from the date of
this order or any extension beyond that time as may be granted by
the district director; in the event of failure so to depart, the respondent shall be deported as provided in the immigration judge's
order.




                                356