Case: 19-12648 Date Filed: 04/20/2020 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-12648 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A200-614-984 WACHARAPONG TAWEESUK, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 20, 2020) Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-12648 Date Filed: 04/20/2020 Page: 2 of 6 Wacharapong Taweesuk, proceeding with counsel, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying his application for cancellation of removal and ordering him removed. He argues that the BIA’s interpretation of § 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C)—under which he was found ineligible for cancellation of removal—is unreasonable, and thus not due deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). For the following reasons, we dismiss his petition. 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, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015). Our jurisdiction depends on whether the petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies, which depends on whether he raised his claim before the BIA. See id. We lack jurisdiction to address an issue not raised before the BIA. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); see INA § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). The petitioner “must have previously argued the core issue now on appeal.” Indrawati, 779 F.3d at 1297 (internal quotation mark omitted). Further, where the BIA has the power to review a claim and provide a remedy, exhaustion of that claim is required before we can consider it. See Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 2 Case: 19-12648 Date Filed: 04/20/2020 Page: 3 of 6 860, 868 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that a petitioner was required to exhaust his claims because the BIA could have reviewed and remedied them). The exhaustion requirement “allows the BIA to consider the niceties and contours of the relevant arguments, thereby fully considering the petitioner’s claims and compiling a record which is adequate for judicial review.” Amaya-Artunduaga, 463 F.3d at 1250 (alterations adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the BIA addressed an issue sua sponte that a petitioner had not raised, we held that we nevertheless lacked jurisdiction to review that claim because we could not say that the BIA “fully considered the petitioner’s claims, as it had no occasion to address the relevant arguments with respect to the issue it reviewed, nor can we say there is any record, let alone an adequate record, of how the administrative agency handled the claim in light of the arguments presented.” Id. at 1251. Here, we lack jurisdiction to review Taweesuk’s claim because the BIA had the power to remedy his claim but Taweesuk did not adequately raise it before the BIA ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals