2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-22-2010 

# W oghire n v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4442

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " W o ghir e n v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1855. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1855

### Honor abl e Chri s t ophe r C. Conne r , Judge of the Uni t e d St at e s Di s tri c t Court for 1 

### the Mi ddl e Di s tri c t

of Pe nns yl vani a , s i tt i ng by de s i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 07- 4442

_____________ L E S L I E E . WOGHI RE N, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

_____________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew fr om t he B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyD ocketN o. A 28- 900- 601

_____________ S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a),

J anuary25, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges , and C O N N E R , D i s t r i ctJ udge 1 ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: February22, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge:

### - 2-

Lesl ieE. Wogh iren was founddepo rt ableby an Im migrati onJudg e ( “I J” ), afte r wh ic h h e fil ed an appeal wit h the Bo ard o f Immigrati onAp peal s ( “BIA”) , which dismis se d h is appeal . In this petition f or re view of

the BIA’s deci si on , W og hire n rel ie s up o nanarg um ent th at h e d idn o t p resent to th e B IA . B ecau se Wo g h irend idn o t ex h au st th e claim h e raises h ereinb ef

o re th e B IA , w e co n clu d e th at w e lackj urisd ictio no v er h is claim an dw ill d ismiss h is p etitio nf o r rev iew . I. B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he part i es , w e onl ydi s cus s t he fa ct s and pr ocee di ngs t o t he ext entnece s s aryforr es ol ut i on of 

### th e issu e raisedo nap p eal. W oghi r en i s a ci t i zen a nd nat i ve of N i ger i a w ho w as admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es on a t r avel vi s a i n 1986. T her eaf t er , he bec ame a condi t i onal r es i dentas a r es ul tof havi ng m arr i ed a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. H e fi l ed a Form I - 751 pet i t i on, s eeki ng t o r emove t he condi t i ons of hi s r es i dency , buti n 1991 t he I m m i gr at i on Ser vi ce de ni ed hi s pet i t i on on acc ountof W oghi r en’ s fai l ur e t o pr ove thatt he mar r i age w as a bona f i de “pr oper m arriage . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 6 a(d )(1)(A ). L at ert haty ear , W oghi r en w as gr ant ed adva nce pa r ol e i n or dert o t r avel t o N i ger i a, butupon hi s r etur n, he w as pl ace d i n excl us i on pr ocee di ngs forhavi ng ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i t houtval i d entr ydocument s . T hi s pl ace m entw as appar ent l yi n err or , beca us e at t he t i m e, W oghi r en’ s appea l of hi s I - 751 pet i t i on w as s t i l l pendi ng, and he w as t hus not excl udabl e. U pon W oghi r en’ s obj ect i on t o t he I J on t hi s bas i s , t he exc l us i on pr ocee di ngs

### - 3-

w er e t erm i nat ed. T he I N S agai n pl ace d W oghi r en i n excl us i on pr ocee di ngs i n 1996, but t hes e pr ocee di ngs w er e l i kew i s e t erm i nat ed. I n M ar ch 1997, t he I N S char ged W oghi r en w i t h bei ng depor t abl e pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( D ) ( i ) ( pr ovi di ng fort he deport abi l i t yof a c ondi t i onal perm anent re sid e n t w h o se c o n d iti o n a l re sid e n c yh a s b e e n ter m in a ted ), b u t th e IJ o n c e a g a in ter m in a ted th e p ro c e e d in g s b e c a u se W o g h ire n h a d f iled a se c o n d I-7 5 1 a p p lica tio n . T h is appl i cat i on w as deni ed i n 2004 fors ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas on under l y i ng t he deni al of W oghi r en’ s fi r s tI - 751— t hati s , W oghi r en had a gai n fai l ed t o pr ove thathi s m arr i age w as b o n a f ide. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 6 a(d )(1)(A ). Fol l ow i ng t he deni al of W oghi r en’ s s econd I - 751, t he G overnm ents oughtt o r ecal endart he deport at i on pr ocee di ngs . A ta hea r i ng befor e the I J , W oghi r en, uni nform ed bycouns el ort he I J t hathe mi ghtbe abl e t o pur s ue the r emedyof s us pens i on of d e p o rta tio n , co n c e d e d th a t h e w a s d e p o rta b le. T h e IJ o rd e re d th a t W o g h ire n v o lu n tar ily d e p a rt th e U n ited S tate s b yJu ly2 0 0 6 . W o g h ire n d id n o t so d e p a rt, an d in ste a d , in J u ly 2007, fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen the mat t er , al l egi ng t hathi s pr i orcouns el had bee n i neff ect i ve bec aus e he ha d fai l ed, i nt eral i a, t o pur s ue the r emedyof ca ncel l at i on of r emoval . T he I J deni ed the mot i on, concl udi ng ( 1) t hati tw as unt i m el yand ( 2) t hat canc el l at i on of r emoval w as notcal l ed forbeca us e W oghi r en had notdemonstr at ed the re q u is ite le v e l o f

h a rd s h ip to q u a lif

yf o r c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l. W oghi r en appe al ed the I J ’ s deci s i on t o t he B I A , cont endi ng thatdur i ng t he r e-

### - 4-

cal endar ed deport at i on pr ocee di ngs , t he I J vi ol at ed hi s obl i gat i on t o i nform W oghi r en of hi s pot ent i al el i gi bi l i t yforcanc el l at i on of r emoval . See 8 C . F. R . § 1240. 11( a) ( 2) ( “The i m m i gr at i on j udge s hal l i nform t he al i en of hi s orherappar entel i gi bi l i t yt o appl yforany o f th e b e n e f

its e n u m e ra ted in th is c h a p ter a n d sh a ll af f o rd th e a lien a n o p p o rtu n ityto m ak e a p p li ca ti o n d u ri n g the h ea ri n g , in ac co rda n ce w ith the p rov isi o n s o f § 1 2 4 0 . 8 (d).”) S ig n if ica n tly , in h is a p p e a l to th e B IA , W o g h ire n m a d e n o m e n tio n o f th e se p a ra te r emedyforw hi ch he now cont ends he w as el i gi bl e— i . e. , s us pens i on of deport at i on. T he B IA d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l, ex p lain in g th a t alth o u g h im m ig ra tio n ju d g e s h a v e th e d u tyto i nform peopl e appe ar i ng befor e them of t hei rpot ent i al el i gi bi l i t yforr el i ef, s ee i d. , t he r emedyW oghi r en cl ai m ed thatt he I J s houl d have i nform ed hi m of— canc el l at i on of r emoval

— w as notavai l abl e i n a deport at i on pr ocee di ng s uch as W oghi r en’ s . Fol l ow i ng t h e BI A’ s d i s mi s s a l o f

h i s a p p e a l , Wo g h i r e n p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Co u r tf o rr e v i e w. II. U ndert he I N A , w e mayr evi ew t he B I A ’ s deci s i on i n t hi s cas e onl yi f W oghi r en

“ h a s e x h a u s te d a ll a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s a v a ila b le to . . . [ h im ] a s o f ri g h t.” 8 U .S .C . § 1252( d) ( 1) . W e have i nt erpr et ed thi s s t atut or ypr ovi s i on t o r equi r e “a n al i en ‘ t o r ai s e or exhaus thi s orherr emedi es as t o eac h cl ai m orgr ound forr el i ef [ befor e the B I A ] i f he or sh e is to p re se rv e th e rig h t o f ju d icia l re v iew o f

th a t cla im ,’”a n d h a v e h e ld th a t th is exhaus t i on r equi r ement“i s a j ur i s di ct i onal rul e. ” H oxha v. H ol der , 559 F. 3d 157, 159 & n . 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g A b d u lr ah m an v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 0 F . 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ))

### - 5-

(em p h asis ad d ed ). T he rul e i s notan oner ous one. W e have expl ai ned that“s o l ong as an i m m i gr at i on pet i t i onerm akes s om e ef for t , how everi ns uffi ci ent , t o pl ace t he B oar d on not i ce of a s t r ai ght forw ar d i s s ue bei ng r ai s ed on appe al , a pet i t i oneri s deemed t o have e xhaus t ed her admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es . ” Li n v. A t t ’ yG en. , 543 F. 3d 114, 121 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng J os eph v. A t t ’ yG en. , 465 F. 3d 123, 126 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ) . I n B hi s ki v. A s hcr oft , 373 F. 3d 363, 367- 68 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , forexampl e, w e conc l uded thatw her e an i m m i gr at i on pet i t i onerfai l ed t o ar gue a s t r ai ght forw ar d i s s ue i n a br i ef s ubm i t t ed t o the B I A , buthad putt he B I A on not i ce of t he i s s ue bypr es ent i ng i ti n hi s not i ce of appea l , t he cl ai m w as su f f icie n tlye x h a u ste d . W e e x p lain e d th a t “if th e iss u e is n o t co m p lex , n o b rie f is r equi r ed as l ong as t he not i ce of appea l does pr eci s el yw hati ti s i nt ended t o do— pl ace t he B I A on not i ce of

w hati s ati s s ue. ” I d. at368; s ee a l s o Y an Lan W u v. A s hcr oft , 393 F. 3d 4 1 8 , 4 2 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A tt he s ame t i m e, al though t he exha us t i on r equi r ementi s nott o be appl i ed “i n a dr aconi an fa s hi on, ” Li n, 543 F. 3d at121, an i m m i gr at i on pet i t i oneri s atm i ni m um re q u ir e d to “ a le rt th e B o a rd to th e is s u e h e s e e k s to ra is e ” b e f o re th is C o u rt . A b d u lra h m a n , 3 3 0 F .3 d a t 5 9 5 . W h e re p e tit io n e rs h a v e f a iled to p ro v id e th e B o a rd w ith t he r equi s i t e not i ce, w e have nothes i t at ed t o di s m i s s t he unexha us t ed cl ai m s . See i d. ; cf. L i n, 543 F. 3d at122 ( concl udi ng t hatt he pet i t i onerfai l ed t o exhaus ta cl ai m byput t i ng B I A on not i ce, butexer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on beca us e the B oar d cons i der ed the i s s ue s ua

### - 6-

sp o n te) . T h e q u e stio n is w h e th e r th e p e tit io n e r h a s “ se t f o rth su f f icie n t f a c ts a n d law to in f o rm th e B IA o f

th e b a sis f

o r th e a p p e a l” s o a s to g iv e th e B o a rd th e “ o p p o rtu n ityto r es ol ve i s s ues r ai s ed bef or e i tpr i ort o anyj udi ci al i nt ervent i on. ” H oxha, 559 F. 3d at163 (c ita tio n o m itte d ). H avi ng r evi ew ed W oghi r en’ s not i ce of appea l and the br i ef he s ubm i t t ed t o t he B IA , w e c o n clud e tha t W o g h ir en fa il ed to g ive th e B IA n o ti ce o f h is cl aim that the IJ fai l ed t o i nform hi m of hi s pot ent i al el i gi bi l i t yfors us pens i on of deport at i on, and thathe t her efor e fa i l ed t o exhaus tt he cl ai m he s eeks t o ar gue bef or e us . I ti s t rue, as W oghi r en ar gues , t hatbot h hi s appea l t o t he B I A and hi s ar gum entr efe r ence t he s ame feder al reg u lat ion

— 8 C . F . R . § 1 2 4 0 . 1 1 (a)(2), w h ich re q u ir es im m igrati o n jud g es to inf o rm p e rs o n s in im m ig ra tio n p ro c e e d in g s o f th e irp o te n tia l e lig ib ility f o r r e lie f. W e a g re e w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t, ho w e v e r, th a t W o g h ire n ’s a rg u m e n t in th is a p p e a l, as t o how t he I J r an af

oul of 8 C . F. R . § 1240. 11( a) ( 2) , i s s uffi ci ent l ydi ffe r entfr om t he § 1240. 11( a) ( 2) i s s ue r ai s ed bef or e the B I A t hatW oghi r en ca nnotbe s ai d t o have “ al er t [ed] th e B o a rd to th e iss u e h e [ n o w ] se e k s to ra ise .” A b d u lra h m a n , 3 3 0 F .3 d a t 5 9 5 . In h is appea l befor e the B I A , W oghi r en cont ended thatt he I J err ed byfai l i ng t o i nform hi m of hi s pos s i bl e el i gi bi l i t yforcanc el l at i on of r emoval , s ee 8 U . S. C . § 1229b( b) , an ar gum ent t h e BI A r e

j e c t e d o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a tWo g h i r e n wa s n o te l i g i b l e f o rc a n c e l l a t i o n . No w, fort he fi r s tt i m e, W oghi r en cont ends t hatt he I J s houl d have i nform ed hi m of hi s pot ent i al el i gi bi l i t yfora di ffe r entform of r el i ef, s us pens i on of deport at i on. See 8 U . S. C . § 1254

### - 7-

( 1996) . A s w e have r ecogni zed, canc el l at i on of r emoval and s us pens i on of deport at i on ar e di s t i nctavenue s of r el i ef, appl i cabl e i n di ffe r ents et t i ngs and w i t h di ffe r ent re q u ir e m e n ts . S e e , e .g ., H e rn a n d e z v . G o n z a le s , 4 3 7 F .3 d 3 4 1 , 3 4 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). N ei t hert he w or ds “s us pens i on of deport at i on” nort he appl i cabl e s t atut or ypr ovi s i on 

### a ppe ar i n any of the m at e ri a l s W oghi r e n s ubmi tt e d t o the BI A. W e a gr e e wi th the Go vernm ent that “ [w ]ithout petitioner a ct ually pres enting his argum ent t o the Bo ard r e gar di ng thi s e nt i r e ly

di ffe r e nt form of r e l i e f, the Boar d c an har dly be faul t e d for

not addres sing the possible e rror peti ti on er no w ass erts was c ommitte d b el ow .”(Gov ’t Br. 17. ) Whi l e the a dmini s tr at i ve e xhaus t i on r e qui r e m e nt i s not one r ous , we c e rt a i nly

c annot fi nd i t s at i s fi e d whe r e ape t i t i one r ’ s s ubmi s s i ons t o the BI A ar e e nt i r e ly s i l e nt a s t o the prec is e i ss ue ra is ed befo reus. See A bdul r ahman, 330 F. 3d at595. B eca us e W oghi r en d id n o t ex h a u st th e c laim h e se e k s to ra ise h e re in , w e lac k ju risd ictio n to f u rth e r e n ter tain h i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. S e e H o x h a , 5 5 9 F .3 d a t 

### 159 n. 3. III. F o r th e f o reg o in g reaso n s, w e w ill d ismiss th e p etitio nf o r rev iew .