Case: 21-60893 Document: 00516563156 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 21-60893 Summary Calendar FILED December 1, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Nanifatu Osman; Saratu Kadir, Clerk Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A216 856 619 Agency No. A216 856 620 Before Jolly, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Nanifatu Osman and Saratu Kadri, 1 a lesbian couple who are natives and citizens of Ghana, petition for review of the dismissal by the Board of * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 1 Although the case caption identifies the co-petitioner’s surname as “Kadir,” the proper spelling of her name is used herein. Case: 21-60893 Document: 00516563156 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2022 No. 21-60893 Immigration Appeals (BIA) of their appeal from the denial of their joint applications for asylum, withholding of removal (WOR), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The petitioners have also moved for a stay of removal, and the parties have filed a joint motion to remand the case to the BIA. In their joint motion, the parties request a remand of the asylum and WOR claims on the ground that the BIA procedurally erred by failing to give meaningful consideration to the evidence supporting the petitioners’ claims. See Cabrera v. Sessions, 890 F.3d 153, 162 (5th Cir. 2018) (stating that “[t]he BIA’s decision must reflect a meaningful consideration of all the relevant evidence supporting an asylum seeker’s claims”). To the extent that the parties raise new procedural errors arising solely out of the BIA’s decision, their arguments are unexhausted because they were not raised in a motion for reconsideration. See Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 360 (5th Cir. 2022). On the other hand, to the extent that the parties assert that the immigration judge (IJ) also made the same procedural errors, the parties failed to exhaust the issues by raising them in their appeal to the BIA. See id. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the claims raised in the joint remand motion. See Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 766 (5th Cir. 2020). With respect to their substantive challenges to the denial of asylum and WOR, the petitioners first assert that the agency erred in finding that they failed to show past persecution in Ghana. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). For the first time in this review proceeding, the petitioners challenge the IJ’s no-persecution finding on four specific grounds based primarily on extra-circuit jurisprudence. Because these four particular arguments were not fairly presented in the petitioners’ counseled appeal to the BIA, see Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 321 (5th …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals