Case: 18-13989 Date Filed: 07/12/2019 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-13989 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-243-690 CARLA ELIA MUNGUIA-MEJIA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (July 12, 2019) Before MARCUS, MARTIN and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Carla Munguia-Mejia (“Munguia”) seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) Case: 18-13989 Date Filed: 07/12/2019 Page: 2 of 10 denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In her petition, she argues that: (1) the BIA erred in holding as a matter of law that her specified particular social group -- women in a de facto union who are unable to leave the relationship with their male partner -- was not legally cognizable in light of Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), which was issued during the pendency of her appeal; (2) the BIA should have remanded her case to the IJ for further proceedings in the interests of justice, since she had articulated claims consistent with the precedent overruled by Matter of A- B-; (3) she was deprived of due process when she was not given the ability to present arguments to the IJ or BIA as to why the persecution she suffered met the new standards set forth in Matter of A-B-; and (4) the BIA denied her meaningful review of her challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility finding by declining to address that issue after concluding that Matter of A-B- independently foreclosed her asylum claim. After careful review, we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. Before addressing a petitioner’s arguments on the merits, we must assess our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015). We review alleged due process violations de novo. Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 1138, 1143 (11th Cir. 2010). 2 Case: 18-13989 Date Filed: 07/12/2019 Page: 3 of 10 We lack jurisdiction to review final orders in immigration cases unless “the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). A petitioner fails to exhaust her administrative remedies for a particular claim when she does not raise that claim before the BIA. Amaya- Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250–51 (11th Cir. 2006). To exhaust a claim, she must have previously argued “the core issue now on appeal” to the BIA. Indrawati, 779 F.3d at 1297 (quotations omitted). Even where the BIA sua sponte addresses a claim not raised before it, we will dismiss that claim on review, because the BIA did not have the opportunity to fully consider the claim and to compile a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals