Case: 18-13711 Date Filed: 09/04/2019 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-13711 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. 205-962-674 MUKHTAR CHOCHAEV, Petitioner, versus UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (September 4, 2019) Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-13711 Date Filed: 09/04/2019 Page: 2 of 12 Mukhtar Chochaev seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen his in absentia order of removal. First, he argues that his “notice to appear” did not vest the IJ with jurisdiction over his case because it omitted the time and location of his removal hearing. Second, Chochaev contends that he demonstrated exceptional circumstances sufficient to warrant reopening due to serious illness and ineffective assistance of counsel; on both bases, he asserts that the IJ should have given him an opportunity to present additional evidence and that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to all of his arguments and evidence. Third, Chochaev argues that the BIA should have reopened his case sua sponte. After careful review, we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. I Before we may review a claim raised in a petition for review, the petitioner must have first exhausted all administrative remedies for that claim. INA § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 486, 492 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that “[a] court may not consider a claim raised in a petition to review a final order unless the petitioner has first exhausted her administrative remedies with regard to that claim”). The purposes of the exhaustion requirement are to avoid “premature interference with the administrative process” and to ensure 2 Case: 18-13711 Date Filed: 09/04/2019 Page: 3 of 12 that the agency has had a full opportunity to consider the petitioner’s claims. Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1298 (11th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over issues that the petitioner has not exhausted. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1251 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Chochaev challenges the sufficiency of his notice to appear for the first time in his petition for review before this Court. Two months after he filed his brief before the BIA, the Supreme Court decided Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), which underlies his present notice-to-appear argument. A month and a half after Pereira was issued, the BIA issued the decision that Chochaev now asks us to reopen and remand. We lack jurisdiction to consider “claims that have not been raised before the BIA.” Amaya-Artunduaga, 463 F.3d at 1250. Here, Chochaev had the ability to raise his Pereira-related argument before the BIA issued its opinion, but he failed to do so. First, at no point before the Supreme Court issued Pereira did Chochaev make any argument ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals