Case: 17-15588 Date Filed: 01/02/2019 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-15588 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A209-426-217 HANSE JOSE MAPOUNA MA KONANGO, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (January 2, 2019) Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-15588 Date Filed: 01/02/2019 Page: 2 of 5 Hanse Jose Mapouna Ma Konango seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). On appeal, Konango contends the BIA erred by ignoring his corroborating evidence in regards to his CAT petition.1 After review,2 we dismiss in part and deny in part. Issues not reached by the BIA are not properly before our Court. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). Additionally, a petitioner must exhaust his administrative remedies for our Court to have jurisdiction over a claim or argument, meaning that he must have presented that issue to the BIA first. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 1 Konango did not argue before the BIA that the IJ was not permitted to rely on his adverse credibility finding when denying asylum or withholding of removal or that the IJ failed to give reasoned consideration to his claims and, thus, he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to those arguments. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250- 51 (11th Cir. 2006). Additionally, Konango has abandoned any reasoned consideration argument as to the BIA’s decision regarding asylum or withholding of removal by failing to raise it in his initial brief. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 2 The BIA did not expressly adopt the IJ’s decision or rely on its reasoning, so we review only the BIA’s decision. See Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947-48 (11th Cir. 2010). We review de novo whether we have subject matter jurisdiction. Alvarado v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 610 F.3d 1311, 1314 (11th Cir. 2010). “[A]n assertion that the agency failed to give reasoned consideration to an issue is a question of law that we review de novo.” Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016). 2 Case: 17-15588 Date Filed: 01/02/2019 Page: 3 of 5 (11th Cir. 2006). If a petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not raising an issue in his notice of appeal or appeal brief before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider the claim, even if the BIA addressed the issue sua sponte. Id. at 1250-51. To properly raise a claim before the BIA, the petitioner ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals