Case: 17-14897 Date Filed: 07/09/2018 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-14897 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-528-677 VICTOR TUM-LUX, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (July 9, 2018) Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-14897 Date Filed: 07/09/2018 Page: 2 of 10 Victor Tum-Lux petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). Tum-Lux argues that he established past persecution in Guatemala, and a likelihood of future persecution, through his testimony that an international criminal organization, Mara Salvatrucha (“MS”), threatened to kill him for refusing to join the gang. He argues that such persecution was on account of membership in a particular social group——“Guatemalan males who have been actively recruited by international criminal organizations especially because they are indigenous and more vulnerable in order to use them to commit illicit activities, but who have refused to join.” He also argues that he is entitled to CAT relief because MS will kill him if he returns to Guatemala. The government responds that we lack jurisdiction to review any challenge to the BIA’s or IJ’s credibility and corroboration determinations because Tum-Lux did not sufficiently exhaust any such claims before the BIA. I. Before addressing a petitioner’s arguments on the merits, we assess our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 2 Case: 17-14897 Date Filed: 07/09/2018 Page: 3 of 10 1297 (11th Cir. 2015). We may review a final order of removal only if an alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available as a matter of right. INA § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). An alien fails to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to a particular claim when he does not raise that claim before the BIA, and we lack jurisdiction to consider unexhausted claims. Indrawati, 779 F.3d at 1297. To exhaust a claim, a petitioner must have previously argued “the core issue now on appeal” before the BIA. Id. Exhaustion does not require a petitioner to use precise legal terminology or to provide well-developed arguments in support of his claim, but it does require that he provide information sufficient to enable the BIA to review and correct any errors below. Id. These requirements are intended to ensure that premature interference with the administrative process is avoided and that the agency has had a full opportunity to consider a petitioner’s claims. Id. at 1298. Although he did not offer well-developed arguments challenging the IJ’s credibility and corroboration determinations to the BIA, Tum-Lux’s notice of appeal and brief before the BIA squarely ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals