removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s summary dismissal for failure to file a brief to determine whether it was appropriate. Vargas-Garcia v. INS, 287 F.3d 882, 884 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition. Pelagio filed a Notice of Appeal (Form EOIR—26) with the BIA indicating his intent to file a brief, then failed to file a brief. Summary dismissal was appropriate because Pelagio’s Notice of Appeal did not sufficiently specify his grounds for appeal. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 820-21 (9th Cir.2003); see also 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(2)©. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pelagio’s motion to file a late brief because he did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances. Cf. Escobar-Ramos v. INS, 927 F.2d 482, 485-86 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Pelagio also contends that he was denied due
holding that the filing of an opening brief within the time period for filing a notice of appeal could constitute notice of appeal holding bia should consider filing of late brief upon showing of extraordinary circumstances holding that for purposes of rule 9006b the code does not require a showing of extraordinary circumstances holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte holding that the bia rule is reasonable