Case: 19-13170 Date Filed: 06/24/2020 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-13170 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A215-813-676 ANIL KUMAR, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (June 24, 2020) Before WILSON, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-13170 Date Filed: 06/24/2020 Page: 2 of 8 Anil Kumar seeks review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). On appeal, Kumar raises two arguments: (1) the IJ violated his due process rights, and (2) substantial evidence does not support the adverse credibility determination or the determinations that he was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. After careful review, we dismiss Kumar’s petition in part and deny it in part. With respect to the due process arguments, we conclude that Kumar has not properly exhausted those claims and, as a result, we do not have jurisdiction to hear them. And with respect to the second issue, we conclude that substantial evidence supported each of the BIA’s determinations. He argues that the IJ violated his due process rights by (1) incorrectly advising him of the allegations in the notice to appear (“NTA”) and charges of removability and (2) not designating a country for removal. He also argues that substantial evidence does not support the adverse credibility determination or the determinations that he was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. 2 Case: 19-13170 Date Filed: 06/24/2020 Page: 3 of 8 I. DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS Kumar first argues that the IJ violated his due process rights by (1) incorrectly advising him of the allegations in the notice to appear (“NTA”) and charges of removability and (2) not designating a country for removal. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Where the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we will also review the IJ’s decision to that extent. Id. We review due process claims de novo. Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 1138, 1143 (11th Cir. 2010). We also review jurisdictional issues de novo and have an independent obligation to determine that we have jurisdiction to hear claims presented to us. Chao Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 677 F.3d 1043, 1045 (11th Cir. 2012). For us to exercise jurisdiction over a petition for review in an immigration case, an alien seeking relief must exhaust the administrative remedies available to him prior to obtaining judicial review. INA § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250–51 (11th Cir. 2006). The purpose of the exhaustion doctrine is to provide the agency with ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals