
    Esmeralda Marisol MUNOZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72937.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 19, 2014.
    Esmeralda Marisol Munoz, pro se.
    Channah Norman, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Esmeralda Marisol Munoz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s summary dismissal of an appeal. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Munoz’s appeal because she failed to file a brief or statement as she indicated on her Notice of Appeal, and the Notice of Appeal itself lacked sufficient specificity regarding the grounds for appeal. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.2004) (“The BIA simply cannot evaluate the merits of an appeal unless the petitioner clearly expresses what he considers to be the factual and/or legal inadequacies of the IJ’s challenged decision.”). We reject Munoz’s contention that the BIA failed to sufficiently articulate the reasons for its decision.

We lack jurisdiction to review Munoz’s contentions regarding the merits of her claims. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     