CESPEDES

Interim Decision #3077




                          MATTER OF CESPEDES

                         In Deportation Proceedings

                                  A-26642351

                   Decided by Board September 20, 1988

(1) A record of proceeding forwarded to the Board without a transcript of the proceedings pursuant to a motion for summary dismissal of the appeal under Matter
  of 2orr4 

 (BIA 1984), must include a transcript of the immigration
  judge's decision in its entirety; the forwarding of the "order" and "further order"
  portions of the immigration judgo'c decision alone is insufficient.
(2) The mere statement on a Notice of Appeal (Form 1-290A) that a brief will be
  filed upon receipt of a transcript of the proceeding does not absolve the appealing
  party of the responsibility of adequately identifying the reasons for appeal on the
  Notice of Appeal.
(3) Where a motion for summary dismissal of an appeal has been made, the appellant can respond in various manners: (1) argument can be made that the statements in the Notice of Appeal adequately set forth the reasons for the appeal; (2)
  the statement on appeal can be elaborated upon to meaningfully identify the reasons for appeal; (3) a brief in support of the appeal can be submitted; or, (4) if
  there are unusual reasons why a more explicit statement of the reasons for
  appeal cannot be provided until a transcript is prepared, they should be clearly
  identified.
(4) Absent a meaningful statement of the reasons for an appeal or an adequate explanation of why a transcript of the proceedings is necessary.before such reasons
  can be set forth, there is no appropriate reason to extend appellate briefing time
  beyond the period fixed by regulation.
CHARGE:
  Order: Act of 1952 — Sec. 24104(2) [

(aX2)l —Entered without inspoodon
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:                          ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
 Samuel Jay Levine, Esquire                        Gaylyn Boone
 Law Offices of Levine & Sobral, P.C.              General Attorney
 4001 North 9th Street, Suite 224
 Arlington, Virginia 22203

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



                                        7Rti
                                              Interim Decision #3077

   In a decision dated February 22, 1988, the immigration judge
found the respondent deportable as charged, denied his applications for political asylum and withholding of deportation, but
granted him the privilege of voluntary departure. The respondent
appealed. The record will be returned to the Office of the Immigration Judge for further action.
   Subsequent to the February 22, 1988, decision of the immigration
judge, the respondent, through counsel, filed an appeal that reads
in its entirety: "The denial of constitutional due process. A brief
will be submitted in a reasonable period of time after counsel has
received a transcript of the proceedings."
   On March 2, 1988, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
filed a motion for summary dismissal of the appeal without a transcript of the proceeding being prepared. See Matter of Torre, 

 (BIA 1984); Matter of Gamboa, 

 (BIA
1972). In support of its motion, the Service argued that the respondent's appeal was ripe for summary dismissal pursuant to 

(d)(1 -a) (1988) because it was stated in general language,
failed to specify the aspect of the immigration judge's decision
deemed incorrect and for what reasons, and was frivolous and filed
for the purposes of delay.
  The Service's request to forward the record to the Board for possible consideration without the preparation of a transcript was
granted by the immigration judge on March 4, 1988, prior to the
respondent having an opportunity to respond to the request. It is
not clear that the respondent was ever advised that the request
had been approved. The record of proceedings was then forwarded
to the Board without a transcript of either the proceedings or the
immigration judge's decision.
   On March 15, 1988, the respondent filed an opposition to the
Service's request. The basis for the opposition reads in its entirety:
"It is asserted that the government is in error in that due process
is a matter for this Board of Immigration Appeals to consider."
  The procedures regarding requests to forward records on appeal
to the Board without a transcript of the proceedings being prepared are set forth in Matter of Torre, supra, and Matter of
Gamboa, supra. Both decisions note that the record forwarded to
the Board should include the immigration judge's "order." In this
case, the record includes what is designated as an "order supplementing the oral decision of the immigration judge," but not a
transcript of the oral decision itself. The term "order," when used
in Matter of Torre and Matter of Gamboa, refers to the immigration judge's decision, not simply the "order" and "further order"
portions of the decision. Accordingly, it is necessary to return the

                                 '701
Interim Decision #3077

file to the Office of the Immigration Judge so that the decision can
be transcribed and included in the record.
   We note, however, that the statement on the Notice of Appeal
(Form I-290A) in this case is so general as to provide no guidance
as to the reasons for taking the appeal. By stating only that there
was a "denial of constitutional due process," the respondent has
not meaningfully identified the aspect of the immigration judge's
decision that is challenged and the reasons underlying the challenge. To review this case, it would be necessary to first review the
record and then speculate on what possible errors the respondent
claims (i.e., it would be necessary to construct the reasons for
appeal before they could be addressed). See Matter of Valencia, 

 BIA 1986); Matter of Holguin, 

 (BIA
1969). Therefore, this was an appropriate case for the Service to request that the record be forwarded to the Board for consideration
for summary dismissal without a transcript being prepared.
   Where such a request is made, an appellant can respond in various manners: (1) argument can be made that the statements on the
Notice of Appeal do adequately set forth the reasons for the appeal;
(2) the statement on appeal can be elaborated on to meaningfully
identify the reasons for the appeal; (3) a brief in support of the
appeal can be submitted; or, (4) if there are unusual reasons why a
more explicit statement of the reasons for appeal cannot be provided until a transcript is prepared, they should be clearly identified.
The mere statement on the Notice of Appeal that a brief will be
filed upon receipt of a transcript of the proceeding does not absolve
an appellant of the responsibility of adequately identifying the reasons for appeal on the Notice of Appeal. We note that a brief on
appeal is due "within the time fixed for appeal," unless an additional period is designated. See 

(c) (1988) - Absent a
meaningful statement of the reasons for appeal or an adequate explanation of why a transcript of the proceedings is necessary before
such reasons can be set forth, there is no appropriate reason to
extend the briefing time. We note that it would be an unusual case
where an appellant cannot set forth a meaningful statement of the
reasons for appeal before the transcript is prepared. Here, the respondent's March 15, 1988, reply to the Service's request does not
provide any further meaningful guidance as to the reasons for
appeal.
  In this case, the record is being returned for the inclusion of a
transcript of the immigration judge's oral decision. Upon service of
the decision, the respondent is granted 10 days in which to respond
to the Service's Torre request in view of the standards set forth
above. If a response is filed, the immigration judge should further

                                7A9.
                                            Interim Decision #3077

review the Service request under the procedures set out in Matter
of Torre. If no farther response is filed, the record should be returned to the Board.
   ORDER: The record is returned to the Office of the Immigration Judge for further action in accordance with the foregoing decision.