When the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) began deportation proceedings against Jose Vidal Soriano, a citizen of El Salvador, Soriano conceded deportability, but applied for asylum and withholding of deportation. At a hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ), Soriano testified the El Salvadoran army had interrogated him about being a guerilla and hurt his arm. The IJ doubted the credibility of Soriano’s uncorroborated testimony, and concluded Soriano failed to show a clear probability of persecution entitling him to asylum or a well-founded fear of persecution entitling him to withholding of deportation. The IJ thus denied Soriano’s application. In his notice of appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Sori-ano briefly repeated his factual allegations and maintained simply that his testimony at the deportation hearing “showed a well-founded fear of persecution.” Soriano did not file a brief. The BIA summarily dismissed Soriano’s appeal under a regulation allowing summary dismissal when the appellant fails to specify the reasons for the appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(l-a)(i)(A) (1994). Soriano now petitions for review of the BIA’s summary dismissal.
We conclude the BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Soriano’s appeal. The BIA has interpreted 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i)(A) as requiring an appellant to be specific about the reasons for appeal.
Nazakat v. INS,