
    Diane Philomenia GILES, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-71062.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 10, 2003.
    
    Decided Nov. 18, 2003.
    Diane Philomenia Giles, pro se, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Susan Houser, Esq., Office of Immigration Litigation, Richard M. Evans, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Diane Philomenia Giles, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) summary dismissal of her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s summary dismissal for failure to file a brief to determine whether it was appropriate. See Vargas-Garcia v. INS, 287 F.3d 882, 884 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition because Giles’ brief to the BIA was late and her notice of appeal to the BIA did not indicate which facts were in contention and how the IJ misinterpreted the evidence. See Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 195-96 (9th Cir.1992).

We deny respondent’s September 2, 2003 motion to strike extra-record exhibits. We deny as moot Giles’ September 22, 2003 motion to excuse late filing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     