Marcelino Toquero v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that a “reviewing body” is not required to “sift through the record in order to search for errors and build the appellant’s argument”
• affirming dis- missal where notice of appeal \did not indicate which facts were in contention and how the IJ misinterpreted the evidence\
• noting that a notice of appeal is sufficient to sustain an appeal when it “ ‘inform[s] the BIA of what aspects of the IJ’s decision were allegedly incorrect and why.’ ” (quoting Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 1364, 1365 (9th Cir. 1985)
• noting that a notice of appeal is sufficient to sustain an appeal when it “ ‘inform[s] the BIA of what aspects of the IJ’s decision were allegedly incorrect and why.’ ” (quoting Reyes-Mendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 1364, 1365 (9th Cir. 1985)
• observing that “[t]he instructions do not set out ... the specificity standard used by the BIA in deciding to summarily dismiss an appeal .... [rather] the form suggests that the alien need not go into much detail by providing only a three-inch space on which to state his claim of error”
• upholding the BIA’s dismissal because the petitioner failed to state with sufficient specificity the grounds for the appeal in his Notice of Appeal, failed to file a brief, and failed to respond to the government’s brief arguing for summary dismissal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).