USCA11 Case: 20-12638 Date Filed: 04/26/2021 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-12638 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C Docket No. A093-444-594 MODOU THIAM, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 26, 2021) Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK and ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-12638 Date Filed: 04/26/2021 Page: 2 of 8 I. The government has moved to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, for summary denial. We first address our jurisdiction, which we review de novo. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen, 810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016). The government argues that the petitioner, Modou Thiam, has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not raising his due process claim before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). “[W]hen a petitioner has neglected to assert an error before the BIA that he later attempts to raise before [this Court], the petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.” Id. at 800. In other words, we cannot consider issues that could have been, but were not properly raised in immigration proceedings and appealed to the BIA. Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 867 (11th Cir. 2018). However, this is not a stringent requirement, and we look to the substance of the appeal for facts and allegations that make manifest the petitioner’s attempt to raise this claim before the BIA. Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1298 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). A petitioner has not exhausted a claim unless he has both raised the “core issue” before the BIA, and also set out any discrete arguments he relies on in support of that claim. Jeune, 810 F.3d at 800. “While exhaustion does not require a petitioner to use precise legal terminology or provide well-developed arguments to support his claim, it does require that the petitioner provide information sufficient to 2 USCA11 Case: 20-12638 Date Filed: 04/26/2021 Page: 3 of 8 enable the BIA to review and correct any errors below.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Although we have noted that some constitutional claims may not be subject to the exhaustion requirement, where a procedural due process claim properly falls within the immigration courts’ power to review and provide a remedy, the claim must be exhausted before it can be considered by this Court. Lin, 881 F.3d at 867-68 (citing Sundar v. INS, 328 F.3d 1320, 1325 (11th Cir. 2003) and Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2006)). In Amaya-Artunduaga, we determined that the petitioner’s due process claim, regarding the fairness of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) as a neutral factfinder and access to a full and fair hearing, was “precisely the kind of procedural error which requires exhaustion.” 463 F.3d at 1251. If the petitioner fails to raise a claim before the BIA, we will dismiss that part of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals