Case: 20-10675 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-10675 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A200-293-549 TERESA ANDRES-MENDEZ, a.k.a. Anita Pascual-Jose, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 1, 2020) Case: 20-10675 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 2 of 8 Before JORDAN, NEWSOM and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Teresa Andres-Mendez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). Andres argues the IJ erred in: (1) discounting the affidavit of her expert; (2) finding her particular social group was not cognizable; (3) finding there was no nexus between the persecution she suffered and her membership in the group; and (4) finding she would not be subject to torture at the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. The Government responds we lack jurisdiction because Andres failed to exhaust certain claims before the BIA. After review,1 we dismiss the petition. I. DISCUSSION We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal only when a petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies available to her as of right. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). “A petitioner fails to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to a particular claim when she does not raise that claim before the BIA.” Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir. 1 We review the issue of our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015). Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning, “we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ to the extent of the agreement.” Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). 2 Case: 20-10675 Date Filed: 10/01/2020 Page: 3 of 8 2015). To exhaust a claim before the BIA, a petitioner must both raise the core issue now on appeal and “set out any discrete arguments he relies on in support of that claim.” Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 800 (11th Cir. 2016). The petitioner’s argument need not be well developed, but it must “provide information sufficient to enable the BIA to review and correct any errors below.” Indrawati, 779 F.3d at 1297. A. Expert’s Affidavit Andres first argues the IJ erred in discounting her expert’s affidavit, which amounted to a violation of her due process rights. The Government asserts we lack jurisdiction to review this claim because it was not raised before the BIA. The IJ admitted the expert’s written testimony as it pertained to “country condition expertise and impact of country conditions on indigenous and Mayan women in Guatemala,” but disregarded “any inappropriate conclusions of fact or law.” In her appeal to the BIA, Andres raised a due process argument concerning other ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals