### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 60814
J O H N N YA K U N D I O M A R I P et i t i on er v. ERI C H H OLD ER, J R, U S ATTORN EY GE N ERA L R esp on d en t

Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s
B ef ore G A R W O O D , D E N N IS, an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es . P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg e: A n I m m i grati on Ju dg e f ou n d P et i t i on er John Nyak undiO m arir e m ovab l e, butg r ant e d hi m adi s c r e t i o nary c anc e ll at i o n o f r e m o va l
. The G o ve r nm e nt ap pe al e d thi s de c i s i o n t o t he Boar d o f I m m i gr at i o n Appe al s , w hi c h r e ve r s e d the IJ a n dord ere dO m a rirem ov edto K en ya . O m a rin ow pe titi on s th i s cou rt t o v a c a te t h e B IA ’ s o r d e ro n fo u rs e p a r a te g r o u n d s . B u t O m a r i h a s n e v e rp r o p e r ly p rese n tedan y of th e i ssu es he n ow ra i ses to th e B IA , de sp i te the op p ortu n i ty to do s o. As 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( d) requir es thata pet i t i onerexhaustal ladm i ni st r at ive rem edi es ava i l able as of ri gh tf or th i s c ou rtt o ha ve j u ri sdi ct i on over an i ssue, O m ari ’ s fai l u re t o rai se th ese i ssues bef ore t h e B IA j u ri sdi ct i on al l y bars us f rom a d d r e s s i n gt h e m. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 4, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 60814

2 O r di nar i l y, s uc h afail ur e t o r ai s e a n i s s ue b e f o r e t he B IA w o ul d endo ur i n q u i ry . B u t O m a ri m a k es tw o a rg u m en ts t h a t w a rra n t con sider a ti on . F i rst, h e asser t s t h at he ef

fect ivel y— i f

not expl i cit l y— rai s e d a llpe r ti nent i ssues bef ore t he BI A, s uc h t hatt he BI A had ad e qua t e no t i c e t o s at i s f y e xha us t i o n. Se c o nd, O m a rialtern a tive l y a s k s t h a t w e ex cu se h i s fa i l u re to ex h a u st. W e fi n dbo th ar gum e nt s una va i l i ng; al l o w anc e of “ e f fe c t ive ” ex haus t i o n ru ns c o nt r ar y t o t he pur po s e s o f

§ 1 25 2( d) , a nd, a tl e as ta f t e rt he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s de c i s i o n i n B ow les v . R u ss ell , 12 7 S
. C t. 2 3 6 0 , 23 6 4

– 6 6 ( 2 0 0 7 ), w e d o n ot h a ve the au th ority to excuse O m ari ’ s fai l u re t o com pl y w i t h a st atutor y j u ri sdi ct i on alm an da t e. W e t he r e f

o r e di s m i s s O m ar i ’ s pe t i t i o n f o rl ac k o f

j ur i s di c t i o n. As o ur de c i s i o n t u r n s o n a p r o c e d u r a l s t u m b l e c o m m i t t e d i n h i s s e c o n d a p p e a l t o t he B IA , w e s e t fo r th th e h is to r yo f O m a r i’ s ca s e ins o m e d e ta il.

I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND O m aricam e t o t h e U n i t ed S t ates as a st u den ti n 198 6 an d soon becam e a l aw f ulper m anentr es i dent
. H e l aterpl eade d gui l t y t o t w o unr el at ed c r i m i nal o f fe ns e s : aM i nne s o t a m i s de m e an or c har geo f f i f t h- de gr e e a s s ault(t he

“M i n n esot a assau l tconvi ct i on ” ) an d a federalcharge of conspi racy t o t ran sport s t o l e n g o o ds i n i nt e r s t at e c o m m e r c e (t he “fe de r alc o ns pir ac y c o nvic t i o n” )
. The G overnm en tbegan rem oval proceedi n gs aga i n st O m ari an d i ssuedhi m a N ot i ce to A p p e a r , e v e n tu a llya s s e r tin gth r e e s e p a r a te g r o u n d s fo rre m o v a l : ( 1 ) h is fe d e r a l co n s p ir a c yco n v ic tio n w a s a n a g g r a v a te dfe lo n y , see 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(A)(iii); (2 ) h is M in n e s o ta a s s a u lt co n v ic tio n w a s a c r im e o f d o m e s tic v io le n c e , see 8 U
. S. C. § 1 22 7( a) ( 2) ( E) (i) ; a nd ( 3) bo t h hi s M i nne s o t a as s aulta nd fe d e r a l co n s p ir a c yco n v ic tio n s w e r e cr im e s in v o lv in gm o r a l tu r p itu d e , see 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1227 ( a) ( 2) (A) (i i)
. O m aricontes t ed hi s r em ovab i l i t y an d als o app l i ed f or c a n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l. S ee 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (a ). A n IJ fo u n dO m a r i re m o v a b le on t h e groun d that hi s f ederalconspi racy convic t i on constit u t ed an aggrav ated fel on y an d d i d n otadd ress t h e ot h er groun ds f or rem oval or O m ari ’ s r equ estf orN o. 07- 60814

3 c anc e l l at i o n. The BI A l at e ra f f i r m e d the I J’ s de c i s i o n. O m ar ipeti t i o ne d thi s c o ur tt o r e vi e w t he BI A’ s o r de r . Fi ndi ng t hatt he r e c o r dd i dno te s t a b l i s h t h a tOma r ih a dc o mm i t t e da n a g g r a v a t e dfe l o n y , we v a c a te dth e B IA ’ s o r d e ra n dre m a n d e d t h e c a s e fo rfu r th e rp r o c e e d in g s . S ee O m ariv. G on zales , 4 1 9 F .3d 3 0 3 , 3 0 9

– 1 0 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( O m a ri I ). O n rem an d, t h e I J st i l lf ou n d O m arirem ovab l e bu tul t i m ately determ i n ed t hathe m e r i t e d c anc e l l at i o n o f r e m o va l
. The I J f

i r s tc o nc l ude d that , de s pit e t he addi t i onalev i denc e the G ove r nm ent had i nt r oduc ed on r em and, O m ar is t i l lhad n otbeen convi ct ed of an aggrav ated fel on y. Th e I J i n st eadf ou n d O m ari r e m o vabl e a s an al i e n c o nvic t e d o f ac r i m e o f

do m e s t i cv i o l e nc e a nd, al t er native l y, a s an al i en c onvi c t ed o f t w o o rm or e c r i m es i nvolvi ng m or al t u rpi t u de. Tu rni n g t o O m ari ’ s app l i cat i on f or can cel l ati on of

rem oval, how ever, t he I J w e i ghe d the e quit i e s a nd c o nc l ude d thatO m ar im e r i t e d c anc e l l at i o n. T h e G o v e r n m e n ta p p e a le dth e I J ’s d e c is io n to th e B IA , d is p u t in gth e I J ’s d e te r m in a tion th a t O m a r i h a dn o t b e e n co n v ic te do f a n a g g r a v a te dfe lo n ya s w e ll as t h e I J’ s di scr et i on ary gran tof cancel l ati on . O m aridi d n otf i l e an app ealf

rom t he I J’ s de c i s i o n, b uthe di d f i l e ar e s po ns e b r i e f

tha tsi m i l ar l y f

o c us e d o n t he aggr avat ed f

el ony and c ance l l at i on i ss ues . T h e B IAagr ee d w i t h t he I J t hat O m a r i h a dn o tb e e n c o n v ic t e do f a n a g g r a v a t e dfe lo n yb u tr e v e r s e dth e I J ’s concl u si on t h at O m arim erit ed can cel l ati on of rem oval. Th e B IAdeter m i n ed th a t t h e e q u itie s d idn o t w e ig h i n O m a r i’ s fa v o ra n dn o te dap o te n tia l ch ild su p p o rt arrearage of $10 , 000
. Th e B IAt h u s vacated t h e I J’ s deci si on , den i ed O m a ri ’ s ap p l i ca ti on f or ca n cell a ti on of rem ov a l , a n d rem a n d edthe cas e to th e IJ fo re n tr yo f a n o r d e ro f r e m o v a l. O m a r i m o v e dth e B IAt o r e c o n s id e rit s d e c is io n . S ee 8 C .F .R
. § 1 0 0 3 .2(b ). In his m ot i on f

or r econsi derati on , O m ari argu ed, i n t er al i a, t h at ( 1) he w as not rem ovab l e b e ca u se hi s M i n n esot a assau l tconvi ct i on w as neith er a c ri m e of dom esti cvi ol enc e no ra c r i m e i nvolvi ng m or alt urpit ude, ( 2) t he B IAhadN o. 07- 60814

4 erro n eo u sly f

ou n dh i m to ow e $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 i n u n p a i dch i l dsu p p ort, an d(3) th e B IA fai l ed to give proper w ei gh tt o fact ors m erit i n g di scr et i on ary can cel l ati on of rem ov a l
. Th e B IA deni ed t hi s m ot i on. I t f i r st not ed t hat O m ar i had fai l ed to ad dr e s s hi s M i nne s o t a as s aultco nvic t i o n on app e aland c o ul d no tdos o f o rt he f i rstt i m e i n a m ot i on f or r econsi derati on . Secon d, t h e B IAref u sed t o consi der n ew evi den ce c on cerni n g O m ari ’ s c h i l d su pp ortobl i gati on s, noti n g t h at a m ot i on f or r econsi derati on w as not t h e proper aven u e fo r a d dressi n g n ew evi den ce. T h i rd , the B IAcon cl u d edtha t O m a ripr ov i d edn o rea s o n s f or re ve rsingi ts d e t e r m in a t io n t h a t h e d id n o t m e r it c a n c e ll a t io n . F in a ll y , in s o fa ra s O m a r i’s m o tio n co u ldb e co n s id e r e d o n e to re o p e n b a s e do n e v id e n c e o f h is a c tu a l ch ild s u p p o r t o b lig a tio n s , see 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1003
. 2(c) , t h e B IAfoun d t h at O m ariha d fai l ed t o show t h at th i s evi den ce w as previ ou sly u n ava i l able or th at itdem on st rat ed a reasona bl e l i kelih ood of success on t h e m erit s. T h e B IAt h u s or dered O m ari r em ove d t o K enya. O m a r i n o w p e tit io n s th is c o u r t t o v a c a te th e B IA ’ s o r d e ro f r e m o v a l. O m a r i ra is e s fo u ra r g u m e n ts o n a p p e a l: (1 ) h is M in n e s o ta a s s a u lt c o n v ic tio n is n ei t h er a c ri m e of

dom est i c vi ol en ce nor a cr i m e i n volvi n g m oralt u rpi t u d e, ( 2) hi s f ederalconspi racy convi ct ion is n ota cr i m e i n volvi n g m oralt u rpi t u de, ( 3 ) t h e B IAe n g a g e dinim p e r m is s ib le fa c tfin d in g , a n d(4 ) th e co u r t s h o u ld rem an d the case f

or a det erm i n ati on of w h et h er he i s eligib le f or w aiver of re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C
. § 1 1 8 2 (h ). I I . J URI S DI CT I ON A . A ct ualE xhaust i on A s a lw a y s , w e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to d e te r m in e o u ro w n ju r is d ic tio n . O m ari I, 419 F. 3d at306. An d al t hough w e g ener al l y have j uri sdi c t i on t o r evi ew f i nal or der s of

r em oval , 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1252( a) ( 1) , under 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( d) , w e “ m ay r e v ie w af

i n a lo r d e ro f r e m o v a l o n lyif .
. . th e a lie n h a s e x h a u s te da ll a d m i ni st r at ive r em edi es avail abl e t o t he al i en as of r i ght
. ” Pet i t i oner s fai ltoN o. 07- 60814

5 e xha us tt he i ra dm i ni s t r at iver e m e di e s a s t o a n i s s ue i f t he y do no tf

i r s tr ai s e t he i s s u e b e fo r e th e B IA , e ith e ro n d ir e c t a p p e a l o rinam o tio n to re o p e n . S ee Heaven v. G on zales , 4 7 3 F .3 d 1 6 7 , 1 7 7 (5 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ); W a ngv. A sh cr oft , 260 F .3 d4 4 8 , 4 5 2

– 5 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T h is e x h a u s tio n re q u ir e m e n t a p p lie s to a ll i ssues f or w h i ch an adm in istr ative rem edyi s avai l able t o a petit i on er “ as of ri gh t. ” A rce - V

ences v. Mu ka sey , 5 1 2 F .3 d1 6 7 , 1 7 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). Are m e d yis av ail ab l e a s o f

r i ghtif ( 1) t he pe t i t i o ne rc o ul d ha vea r gue d the c l ai m b e f o r e t he BI A, a nd ( 2) t he BI A has ad e qua t e m e c hani s m s t o a ddr e s s a nd r e m e dys uc h a c la im
. S ee T

oledo-Hernan d ez v. Mu ka sey , 5 2 1 F .3d3 3 2 , 3 3 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); F ale k v. G on zales , 4 7 5 F .3 d 2 8 5 , 2 9 1 (5 th C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). S in c e e x h a u s tio n in th is c ont exti s a s t at ut or y (r at hert han prudent i al) m andat e, fai l ure t o e xh a u st an is s u e d e p r iv e s th is co u r t o f ju r is d ic tio n o v e r th a t iss u e . W ang , 260 F. 3d at452; seealso R oyv. A sh cr oft , 3 8 9 F .3d 1 3 2 , 1 3 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (p e r c u ria m ). 1. M i nn e s ot a A s s aul tConvi ct i on O m a r i d id n o t a p p e a l th e IJ ’ s d e te r m in a tio n th a t h is M in n e s o t a a s s a u lt c onvi c t i on w as a c r i m e o f dom es t i cvi ol enc e a nd a c r i m e i n vo l vi ng m or al t u rpi t u de. M oreover, O m aridi d n otchal l en ge th is determ i n ati on i n hi s bri ef b e fo r e th e B IA
. H is fa ilu r e to d o s o is afa il u r e t o e x h a u s t, ju r is d ic tio n a lly barri n g u s f

rom add ress i n g t h e m erit s. G r a n te d , O m a r i d idra is e th e is s u e s re g a r d in gh is M in n e s o t a a s s a u lt con victi on i n h i s m oti on f or re con sider a ti on , bu t w e fi n dthis in su ff i ci en t t o sati sf y § 125 2( d). “Am ot i o n t o rec on si der chall en ges t h e [ B IA] ’ s or i gi n aldeci si on a n dall eg es th a t it i s d efective i n som e reg a rd
. ” In reO -S -G , 24 I
. & N
. D ec . 56, 5 7 (B IA2 0 0 6 ); seea lso 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (b )(1 ) (“Am o tio n to re c o n s id e rs h a ll s t at e t he r e as o ns f

o rt he m o t i o n b y s pe c i f yi ng t he e r r o r s o f

factor l aw i n t he pr i o r[ BI A] de c i s i o n . . . . ” )
. A m o t i o n f o rr e c o ns i de r at i o n i s t hus c o nf i ne d t o t he s ubs t anc e o f

t he BI A’ s o r i gi nalde c i s i o n. I ti s no tt he pr o pe ra ve nue f o rr ai s i ng new i ss ues orar gum ent s, and “ [ a] m oti on to r ec ons i derbas ed o n a l egalN o. 07- 60814

6 a r g u m e n t t h a t c o u ldh a v e b e e n r a is e de a r lie rinth e p r o c e e d in g s w ill b e d e n ie d .” O -S -G , 24 I. & N
. D ec. at 58. In ste a d , t h e party bri n gi n g a m ot i on f or reconsi derati on “ m u st specif y t h e fact u al an d l egal i ssues r ai s e d on a ppe alt hat w ere d ecide d i n erro r or ove rl oo k ed i n [th e B IA ’ s] i n i ti a lde ci sion
. ” I d. (e m p h a s is ad ded )
. I n short , an i ssue rai sed fort h e f i rstt i m e i n a m ot i on f or r e c o n s id e r a tio n th a t c o u ldh a v e b e e n r a i s e de a r lie rh a s n o t b e e n p r o p e r ly pr e s e nt e d t o t he BI A. W e t he r e f o r e ho l d thati m pr o pe r l y r ai s i ng an i s s ue f o rt he f i rstti m e in a m ot i on forreconsi derati on d oes n otsat i sf y § 125 2( d)’ s exha u st i on req u i rem en t. B eca u se O m a ri d i d n ot i n i ti a l l y raise a n y i ssu es rega rd i n g h i s M i n n eso ta a ssa u l t con victi on i n h i s b ri ef to th e B IA a n d th e B IA d i d n ot a d d ress th em i n i ts order, O m ari ’ s argu m en t s r egard i n g h i s M i n n esot a assau l tconvi ct i on w ere not t h e proper subjec tof a m ot i on f

o r re co n sid erat i on . A s s u ch, t h ey w ere never p r o p e r lyraisedbe fore th e B IA
. O m a rih a s th ere fore fai l edto exh a u st h is ad m i n i st ra tive rem edi es as t o t h ese i ssues, an d § 125 2( d) j u ri sdi ct i on al l y bars u s f r o m a d d r e s s i n gt h e m. 2. Fede r alCons pi r acyConvi ct i on S im ila r ly , O m a r i n e ith e r a p p e a le d n o r b r ie fe d th e IJ ’ s co n c lu s io n th a t h is fe de r alc o ns pir ac y c o nvi c t i o n was ac r i m e involvi ng m o r alt ur pit ude
. I nde e d, O m arineve raddresse dthis i ssu e— ev en i m p rop erly— b efore th e B IA
. O m arihas t he r e f o r e fail e d t o e xha us thi s a dm i ni s t r at i ve rem edi e s a s t o t hi s i s s ue , a nd § 1 2 5 2 (d) j u ri sd i cti on a l l y b a rs u s f rom ad d ress i n g it
. 3. C ancel l at i on O m aricontends that, i n overt u rni n g t h e I J’ s grant of cancel l ati on of r em oval , t he B IAc om m i t t ed l egaler r orby m aki ng i t s ow n fac t ualf i ndi ngs i nst ead o f

pr ope r l y de fer r i ng t o thos e o f t he I J. As t hi s ar gum ental l ege s a l egal e r r o rinth e B IA ’ s d e c is io n , O m a r i n e c e s s a r ilyd idn o t a d d r e s s th is is s u e inh is in itia l b r ie f to th e B IA
. S till, O m a r i ra is e s th is is s u e fo rth e fir s t t im e b e fo r e th isN o. 07- 60814

7 court, an d the B IAha s never h adthe cha n ce to ad dress i t . T h i s c ou rtan d others hav e pr e vi o us l y hel d ( albe i ti n unp ubli s he d d e c i s i o ns ) t hatc e r t ai n a l l e ga t i o ns o f BIA e r r o rmus tf

i r s tb e b r o u g h tt o t h e BIA i n amo t i o n f o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n. Se eRi v asdeWi l l i am sv . G o nzales , 239 F
. A pp ’ x 46, 48 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) (per c u r ia m ); Man an v. G on zales , 131 F. A pp’ x 12, 15 ( 3d C i r . 2005)
. O f par t i cu l ar r e le v a n c e , th e T e n th C ir c u i th a s h e ldth a t a lle g a tio n s o f im p e r m is s ib le fact f i n di n g by th e B IAm u stf i rstbe broug h tbef

ore th e B IAi n a m ot i on f or r e c o n s id e r a tio n to s a tis fye x h a u s tio n . S ee S i d ab u t ar v. G on zales , 503 F. 3d 1116, 1 1 2 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). A lo n gth e s e lin e s , O m a r i co u ldh a v e b r o u g h t h is al l egati on of

i m perm i ssibl e fact f i n di n g bef

ore th e B IAi n hi s m ot i on f or reco n sider a ti on , an d w e con cl u d e th a t h i s fai l u re to d o so con sti tu tes afa i l u re to exh au stt h e i ssue. T h i s hol di n g com ports w i t h our deci si on s on t h e n ecess i t y of rais i n g n ew cl ai m s i n a m ot i on t o reopen. W e ha ve “ previ ou sly h el d th at w h en a petit i on er see k s to raise acl a i m n ot p rese n tedto t h e B IA a n dthe cl a i m i s on e th a t th e B IA has a de qua t e m e c hani s m s t o addr e s s and r e m e dy , t he pet i t i o ne rm us tr ai s e t he i ssu e in am oti on to reo p en pr i or to res ortingto rev i ew bythe cou rts. ” T oledoHernan d ez , 5 2 1 F .3 da t 3 3 4 (q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n da lte r a tio n o m itt e d); seealso R oy , 3 8 9 F .3 da t 1 3 7 ; W ang , 2 6 0 F .3 da t 4 5 3 ; G o o n su w a nv. A sh cr oft , 252 F. 3d 38 3, 3 88 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 1)
. I n T oledo-Hernan d ez , f

or exam pl e, th e petit i on er as se r t ed f

ort he f i r stt i m e b ef

or e thi s c our tt hatt he vacat ur o f hi s c r i m i nal c o nvi c t i o n m and at e d the v ac at uro f hi s o r de ro f

re m o va l
. 52 1 F. 3dat334
. The peti t i on er exp l ai n ed th at h e n ever asked f or such rel i ef bef

ore t h e B IAbecau se th e v a c a tu r o f h is c r im in a l c o n v ic tio n o c c u r r e d b e y o n d th e tim e inw h ic h h e co u ld file a m o tio n to r e o p e n . I d. W e reco gn i ze dth a t, b eca u se a n y re sort to th e B IA w o ul d ha veb e e n unt i m e l y, t he o nl y w ay t hatt he BI A c o ul d a ddr e s s t he peti t i on er’ s n ew cl ai m w ou l d be throu gh an exerci se of it s su asp o n teau th ority to re o p e n a c a s e fo re x c e p tio n a l cir c u m s ta n c e s . I d. at 335
. W e al soN o. 07- 60814

8 a ck n o w led g e dth a t am o tion to r e o p e n w a s n o t g e n e ra llyre q u ire dto s a t isfy § 1 2 5 2 (d ). I

d. at 336
. B u tw e hel d that t h e B IA ’ s su asp o n teaut hor i t y w as an a v a il a b le a n da d e q u a t e m e c h a n is m fo rt h e B IAt o f ir s ta d d r e s s th e p e t it io n e r ’s c la im
. I d. A s su ch

— a n dde sp i te the see m i n g-con trad i cti on of a sk i n g t h e B IAto a ct su asp o n te , s e eW ang , 2 6 0 F .3d a t453

— w e requi red t h at a pet i t i on er f i rst pre se nt an i ss ue t o t he B IA t hro ugh a m ot i on t o r eo pen f or exce p ti on al c ir c u m s ta n c es for th a t i ssu e to b e ex h a u s te d , T oledo-Hernan d ez , 521 F. 3d at336. T h e sam e reasoni n g ap pl i es t o m ot i on s f or r econsi derati on . Am ot i on f or r e c o n s id e r a tio n s p e c ifie s th e e r r o r s o f fa c t o rla w inap r io rd e c is io n . S ee 8 C. F. R. § 1 00 3. 2(b) ( 1)
. Suc h am o t i o n i s an av ail ab l e a nd a de qua t e m e c hani s m f o rt he p eti ti on er to a rg u e, a n dthe B IAto correc t, a n yerro rs th a t arise i n a B IA d e c is io n . T h is is n o t t o s a yth a t a m o tio n fo rr e c o n s id e r a tio n is g e n e r a lly r e quir e d f

o r e xha us t i o n; i f a pa r t y di s agr e e s w i t h t he BI A’ s r e s o l ut i o n o f a n i s s ue previ ou s l y r ai s e d be f o r e t he BI A, t he r e i s no ne e d t o r e ar gue t hi s i s s ue i n a m ot i on f

or r econsi derati on . B u tw h ere th e B IA ’ s deci si on it sel f res u l t s i n a new i ssu e a n d t he B IAhas an avail abl e a nd adequat e m eans f oraddr es si ng t hat i ssue, a party m u stf i rstbri n g i tt o t h e B IA ’ s at t en t i on t h rough a m ot i on f or r e c o n s id e r a tio n . The i s s ueO m ar ino w r ai s e s r e ga r di ng t he BI A’ s de c i s i o n il l u s t r at e s t he r e a s o n s f

o rt h i s r e q u i r e me n t . O ma r i a s s e r t s t h a tt h e B IA c o n t r a v e n e dit s o wn regulat i on s by enga gi n g i n i m perm i ssibl e fact f i n di n g w h en den yi n g h i s r equ est for ca n cel l at i on o f

r em oval
. H e thus as se r t s t hatt he B IAc om m i t t ed a l egal errori n i t s deci si on . T h i s error i n volves an i ssue st em m i n g f rom t h e B IA ’ s act of deci sio n m ak i n g, an d w as one that nei t h er part y coul d h ave p ossibl y rai sed p r io rto th e B IA ’ s d e c is io n . B u t a fte rth e B IAis s u e dit s d e c i s i o n , O m a r i co u ld h a v e a r g u e dt o t h e B IAt h a t it h a de n g a g e dinim p e r m is s ib le fa c tfin d in ginh is m o t i o n f

o rr e c o ns i de r at i o n. I n o t he rw o r ds , O m ariha d a n a va i l ab l e a nd a d e q u a te m e a n s o f p r e s e n tin gth is a r g u m e n t to th e B IAb e fo r e b r in g in git to th isN o. 07- 60814

9 c o ur t , a nd § 1 25 2( d) r e quir e s t hathe a va i lhi m sel f of i t . I f

t he BI A had f

o und O m a r i’ s a r g u m e n t m e r ito r io u s , itc o u ldh a v e c o r r e c te dth is e r r o r . Y e t O m a r i d id n o t m a k e th i s a r g u m e n t in h is m o tio nfo rre c o n s id e r a tio n . A lth o u g h h e d id a r g u e th a t t h e B IAe r r e dinfin d i n gt h a th e o w e dm o r e th a n $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 inch ild s upp o r t , t hi s a r gum e ntc hall e nge d o nl y t he r e c o r d s upp o r tf o rt he f i ndi ng and n ott h e actof

fact f i n di n g i t se lf. T h u s, O m arinev er r ai sed t h e i ssue of i m perm i ssibl e fact f

i n di n g bef

ore th e B IA
. B ecau se O m ariha s fai l ed to exh au st hi s a dm i ni s t r at iver e m e di e s a s t o t hi s i ssue, § 1 25 2( d) j ur i s di c t i o nall y ba r s us from ad d ress i n g it
. 4 . Wai v e rof

Rem o v alUnde r8U. S. C. §1 1 8 2 ( h) O m ariseeks, a s an a l t erna t ive f orm of rel i ef, to h ave t h i s case rem an ded f or c on si derati on of hi s c l ai m t h at he shou l d be gran t ed a w aiver of i n ad m i ssibi l i t y u n der 8 U
. S
. C
. § 11 82(h)
. O m arid i d n otrais e t h i s i ssue bef ore th e B IAi n h i s br i e f o rm oti on f or re con sider a ti on . A ga i n , O m a rifa i l edto ex h a u st t h i s i ssu e a n dw e th ere fore l a ckj u ri sd i cti on to ad d ress it. B . E f

f ec t i ve Exhau s t i on O m ar ia s s e r t s t hat , de s pit e t he l ac k o f a ny e xp l i c i tm e nt i o ni ng o f t he pre se nti ss ues t o t he B IA , h e ef fec t ively exhaust ed hi s c l ai m s. H e arg ues t hat t h e i ssues he bri efed befor e an d d i scussed w i t h t h e I J a n d th e B IAw ere suff i ci en tt o give t h e B IAadeq u ate notice th at h e d isp u t ed the groun ds of rem ovab i l i t y. M oreover, O m ari contend s t h at som e of t h e i ssues he n ow rai ses o verl ap w i t h one he di d a ddr e s s i n hi s b r i e f t o t he BI A, na m e l y, t he a r gum e nt t hathi s fe de r alc o ns pir ac y c o nvic t i o n was no ta n a gg r av at e d f e l o ny. Om ar it hus s ugg e s t s t hat , e ve n if he di d n otex pl i c i t l y s t at e hi s c o nt e nt i o n wi t h a l lo f t he a l tern a tive gro u n d s u p on w h i ch th e IJ ev en tu a l l y fou n dh i m re m ov a b l e, th e B IA h adsuf f i ci en tnoti ce of

— an d op portun i t i es t o ad dress— t h e i ssues he n ow rai ses. W e di sagree, a n d take thi s opportun i t y t o em ph asi ze t h at part i es m u st fai rl y p rese n t an i ssu e to th e B IAto satisf y § 12 5 2 (d)’ s ex h a u sti on req u i rem en t.N o. 07- 60814

10 S u ch a requ ire m en tha s been an i m pl i citnecessit y of our pri or deci si on s. T h o u g h ra r e lyap o in t o f e m p h a s is , o u rca s e s o n § 1 2 5 2 (d ) h a v e co n tin u a lly stated tha t a p eti ti on er m u st “ra i se,”“p rese n t, ” or“m en ti on ” a n i ssu e to th e B IA to s a tis fye x h a u s tio n . See, e . g. , T oledo-Hernan d ez , 5 2 1 F .3 da t 3 3 5 ; Heaven , 473 F .3 d a t 1 7 7 ; R oy , 3 8 9 F .3 da t 1 3 7 ; W ang , 2 6 0 F .3 da t 4 5 2

– 5 3 ; G o o ns uw an , 252 F. 3d at388. I m pl i c i ti n t hes e r epe at ed s t at em ent s i s t he s ugges t i on t hat § 1 25 2( d) r e quir e s s o m e a f f i r m at ivea c t i o n o n t he par tof a par t y. Suc h a r e ad i ng i s re i n f o r c e db yt h o s e mar g i n a lc a s e s wh e r e t h e s u f f i c i e n c yo f

r a i s i n ga n i s s ue has be e n co nt e s t e d. I n Carran za- d e Sa l i n as v. G on zales , 477 F. 3d 200, 206–07 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) , f

orex am pl e, w e he l d t hata pet i t i onersuf f i c i ent l y exhaust ed an i s s ue b y pr e s e nt i ng i ti n a l e s s - de ve l o pe d f o r m t o t he BI A. Si m i l ar l y, i n B urke v. Mu ka sey , 509 F
. 3d695 , 696 (5 th C ir
. 200 7) (per curi am ) , w e hel d that a pro se pet i t i on er’ s generalargu m en tt o t h e B IA

— t h at hi s c on vi ct i on f or posses si on o f s to len property w as not an a ggrav ated fel on y— em braced the sl i gh t l y m ore s pe c i f i c que s t i o n o f w he t he r hi s c o nvic t i o n w as a “ t he f t o f fe ns e . ” And i n Hongyok v. G on zales , 492 F
. 3d547 , 550 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) , w e h el d th at a sem an t i c dif ference i n t he f r am i ng o f

a n i s s ue b e f

o r e t hi s co ur tand be f o r e t he B IA di d notra i s e a ny s i gnif i cantq ue s t i o n o f

w he t he rt he i s s ue w as e xha us t e d. I n t he s e c as e s , t he p e tit io n e r s m a d e s o m e c o n c r e te s ta te m e n t b e fo r e th e B IAto w h ic h th e yco u ld r e a s o n a b lytie th e ircla im s b e fo r e th is co u r t. O m a r i, inco n tr a s t, h a s n o t . H is fai l u re t o fai rly present the i ssues he n ow bri n gs on ap pea lconst i t u t es a fai l u re to ex h a u st. Suc h ar e quir e m e nti s no tne e dl e s s ly t e c hni c alo rf o r m al i st i c . I nde e d, req u i ri n g th e fa ir p rese n tati on of acon testedi ssu e is sou n dpo l i cy . F i rst, r e quir i ng ac t ual( as o ppo s e d t o e f fe c t ive ) e xha us t i o n a l l o w s f o re f f i c i e nt a dju d ic a tion of im m igr a tion cla im s. O n e of th e p u rp o se s o f § 1 2 5 2 (d )’s e x h a u s tio n re q u ir e m e n t is to p r o v id e th e B IA , th e a g e n c yw ith th e e x p e r tis e in i m m i gr at i o n m at t e r s , w i t h t he o ppo r t uni t y t o a ddr e s s i m m i gr at i o n i s s ue s i n t heN o. 07- 60814

11 f i r s ti n s ta n c e . S ee T

oledo-Hernan d ez , 5 2 1 F .3 da t 3 3 4 ; Zh a ngv. A sh cr oft , 388 F
. 3d713 , 721 ( 9th C i r. 200 4) (per curi am )
. A n essenti al aspect of t h i s pu rpose is p r o v id in gth e B IAw ith a d e q u a te n o tic e o f th o s e is s u e s it sh o u ld a d d r e s s . S ee Figu eroa v. Mu ka sey , 5 4 3 F .3d 4 8 7 , 4 9 2 (9t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); Zhang , 388 F. 3d at721; Za rav. A sh cr oft , 383 F
. 3d927 , 931 ( 9th C i r. 200 4)
. A ccept i n g O m ari ’ s c l ai m s of ef fect ive exh au st i o n w o u ldshi f tsom e of

t h e bu rden of

i den t i f yi n g contest ed i s s ue s f r o m t he pa r t i e s t o t h e BI A. And r e quir i ng t he BI A t o divi ne f r o m t he r e c o r d a l lpo t e nt i all y- di s put e d i ssue s w o ul d p l ac e as i gnif i c antb ur de n o n t he a ge n cy . P erh a p s w a ryof l ea vin g a n y issu e u n a d d ress ed , the B IAm i gh t w a ste r es our c es c om bi ng a pe t i t i oner ’ s f i l e a nd addre ss i ng i ss ues t hatt he par t i es had a c c e p te da s lo s t. T h e p a r tie s a r e inab e tt e rp o s itio n th a n th e B IAto id e n tifya ll i s s ue s t hatt he y c o nt e s t , a nd p l ac i ng t he b ur de n o f r ai s i ng t hose i s s ue s o n t he pa rt i es provi des an app ropri ate i n centive. Fur t he r , t he fac tt hatO m ar ira i s e d s o m e of t he s e i s s ue s be f

o r e t he I J but no tt he BI A i s i nad e qua t e t o s at i s f y § 125 2( d) ’ s ex haus t i o n re quir e m e nt , a s i s t he factt h at h e u l t i m ately preva i l ed bef ore t h e IJ. T h e I J determ i n ed that O m ari w as rem o v a b le as a threshol d m att er but t h en gran t ed a d i scr et i on ary c ance l l at i on of r em oval
. W e sho ul d nei t her expe c t nordes i r e thatO m ar iappeal t he I J’ s t hr e s ho l d a dv e r s e de t e r m i nat i o ns i n s pit e o f hi s ul t i m at e v i c t o r y. But af t er th e g overnm en ta pp eal ed the case t o t h e B IA , O m aricoul d h ave ad dressed t h ese t h reshol d i ssues in h i s bri ef
. O m ari ’ s ul t i m ate vi ct ory bef ore th e I J did not a lter th e IJ ’ s u n d erlyingcon cl u siontha t he w a s rem ov a b l e, a n dO m a rish ou ld h a v e r e a li z e dth a th e w a s s t il l s u bje c tto r e m o v a l if th e B I Ar e v e r s e dth e I J ’s di s c r e t i o n ary granto f c anc e l l at i o n. W e c o ul d v i e w t hi s s i t uat i o n t hr o ught he le g a l f ic t io n th a tO m a r i e ffe c t iv e lyc o n c e d e dth e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e I J ’s c o n c l u s i o n s o n t h e s e i s s u e s w he n he fa i l e dt o c o n t e s tt h e m b e f o r e t h e BIA. Perhaps m or e r eali st i c al l y, neit hert he par t i es nort he B IAar e li kely t o have t h ou gh tabou ta dd ress i n g t h ese u n derl yi n g i ssues of rem ovab i l i t y. Th e qu est i onN o. 07- 60814

12 t h u s becom es one of

how bestt o give n ot i ce t o t h e B IAtha titshou l d ad dress a pa r t i c ul ari s s ue . A ga i n, t he m o r e ef f i c i e ntw ayo f

do i ng t hi s i s pl ac i ng t he o nus of rai si n g i ssues on the pa rt i es. T h u s, i n the i n teres ts of eff i ci en t a dj u d i ca ti on , w e refu se to sa d d l e th e B IA w ith th e b u r d e n o f id e n tify in gth e s u b s ta n c e o f a n im m ig r a tio n a p p e a l. T h is is n o t t o p r e c lu d e th e B IAfr o m ra is in gis s u e s t h a tt h e p a r tie s h a v e s e e m in g ly abandoned, and s houl d t he B IA c hoos e t o do so , our exhaust i on i nqui r y m i ghtbe m u c h d iffe r e n t. Se eLi n v . A t t orney G e n. , 543 F. 3d 114, 122–26 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( di sc uss i ng t he c i r c ui tsp l i t on t hi s i ss ue)
. Bu tc l ai m s t hatpar t i es have ef fect ivel y pl aced th e B IA on n ot i ce t h at t h ey contestan i ssue, even t h ou gh t h ey ne ve ra c t uall y s t at e d as m u ch t o t he BI A, ha veno pl ac e i n o ur§ 1 25 2( d) ex h a u sti on an a l ys i s. Inste a d , pa rti es m u st fa i rl y p rese n t t h e ir con ten ti on s to t he BI A t o s at i s f

y e xha us t i o n. W e n o te p a r e n th e tic a lly th a t w e e x p r e s s ly d e c lin e to a d d r e s s th e s p e c ific q u e stio n o f h o w e x te n siv e ly ap e tition e r m u st r a ise a n issu e to s a tisfy§ 1 2 5 2 (d). A s m u ch as w e w ou l d l i ke to provi de gu i da n ce on t h i s i ssue, O m ari ’ s c ase does no tpr e s e nts uf

f i c i e ntfac t s t hatw o ul d a de qua t e l y f r am e itf

o rde c i s i o n. C. Exc usi ng Exhau s t i on A l t e r n a t iv e l y , Oma r i a s k s t h i s c o u r t t o e x c u s e h i s fa i l u r e t o e x h a u s t . H e f i r s ts ugg e s t s t hato urj ur i s di c t i o n o ve rl e ga la n d co ns t i t ut i o nali s s ue s i n t he im m ig r a tio n co n te x t n e c e s s a r ilye x te n d s to th e is s u e s h e n o w ra is e s o n a p p e a l. O m arial so at t em pts t o i n vok e pu rport ed “ excepti on s” t o § 1252 ( d)’ s exha u st i on requ i rem en t . Final l y, O m arisugg est s that eq u i t y w arran t s excusi n g h i s fai l u re t o e xhaust
. W e f

i nd eac h of

t hes e c l ai m s unavai l i ng. O m ar if i r s ta s s e r t s t hat t hi s c o ur tha s j ur i s di c t i o n o ve ri s s ue s c o nc e r ni ng h is re m o v a b i l i t yb e c a u s e re v ie w o f th e B IA ’ s d e c is io n in c lu d e s re v ie w o f a ll fac t uala nd l e ga lc o nc l us i o ns o n whi c h t he o r der i s co nt i nge nt , i nc l udi ng t he as se r t ed g r ounds f

ordepo r t at i on. Bu tt hi s c annotbe c or r ec t , f ors uch anN o. 07- 60814

13 i n t erpret ati on of

our j u ri sdi ct i on w ou l d n u l l i f y § 125 2( d)’ s exha u st i on r equi r em ent . That is, i nhere ntj uri sdi c t i on o veral ll egali ss ues underlyi ng a BI A or de rw o ul d m e an t hata par t y’ s fail ur e t o ex haus tt he s e i s s ue s b e f o r e t he B IAw ou l d n ever bar t h i s c ou rtf rom add ress i n g t h em . O m ari ’ s s u ggesti on of pl en ary an d u n constr ai n ed ap pel l ate r evi ew i n t h i s c ou rtsi m pl y can n otcoexi st w i t h § 1252 ( d)’ s exha u st i on requi rem en t . A n d a s C on gress di d n otgive u s a gen eralgra n t of ju risd iction ov e r im m igr a tion a p p e a ls— m u ch les s th e sugg est ed p le n a r yr e v ie w — t h e fa c tt h a ti s s u e s o f O m a r i’s r e m o v a b il it yu n d e r li e t h e B IA ’s o r de ri n no w aye xc us e s t he ne c e s s i t y o f e xha us t i o n. O m a r i’ s in v o c a tio n o f p u r p o r te d “e x c e p tio n s ” to § 1 2 5 2 (d ) is s i m ila r ly in a p p o s it e . G r a n t e d , w e h a v e s o m e t im e s s p o k e n o f “ e x c e p t io n s ” to § 1 2 5 2 (d )’s e xha us t i o n r e quir e m e nt . I n G o o ns uw an , f or exam pl e, w e st ated, “ E ven w h en e x h a u sti on i s a j u ri sdi ct i on albar, t h i s C ou rtrec ogn i zes an excepti on ‘ w h en adm i ni st r at ive r em edi es ar e i nadequat e. ’” 25 2 F
. 3d at389 ( quot i ng R am i rez Os o r i o v . I

NS , 7 45 F. 2d9 37 , 9 39 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 84 ) )
. Lat e r c as e s ha vee m pha s i z e d, h ow ever, t h at f

or a r em edyt o be ava i l able “ as of ri g h t” an d thu s fal lun der § 1 2 5 2 ( d) ’ s e x h a u s t i o n r e q u i r e me n t , t h e B IAmu s th a v e a d e q u a t e me c h a n i s ms to a d d r e s s a n dr e m e d yt h e c la im
. See, e . g. , T oledo-Hernan d ez , 521 F. 3d at334; A rce - V ences , 512 F
. 3dat 172
. Th ese “ excepti on s” t o § 125 2 (d ), then , are m ore ap propri ately cha ract eri zed as sit u ati on s i n w h i ch § 125 2( d)’ s exha u st i on r equi r em entdoe s notev en apply be c ause t he par t i c ul ar r eli ef i s notavail abl e a s of ri gh t. T h i s c on st ructi on of

§ 1252 ( d) i n di cat es t h at allof t h e i ssues O m arinow ra i ses fa l lsqu a rely w i th i n its exh a u sti on req u i rem en t. T h e B IAh a dad eq u a te m e c hani s m s t o a ddr e s s a nd r e m e dya l lo f t he s e i s s ue s . M o r e o ve r , O m ar i hada f ul la nd fairopp o r t uni t y t o pr e s e ntea c h of t he s e i s s ue s t o t he BI A be f o r e r ai s i ng t h em i n hi s present peti t i on . A n d th ere i s no evi den ce of bi as aga i n stO m arinor a n y in d i ca ti on tha t th e B IA w o u l dn ot h a ve fa i rl y co n sider edh i s cl a i m s. InN o. 07- 60814

14 short, O m aricoul d h ave m ad e al lof hi s present arg u m e n ts to the B IAbef ore peti t i on i n g t h i s c ou rtf or r evi ew . H e di d not, an d hi s fai l u re t o do s o i s a fai l u re to ex h a u st. F i n al l y, O m ariha s given u s n o reason t o equ i t ably excuse t h e exh au st i on requ i rem en t . H i s fai l u re t o exh au stw as not du e t o an y t h i rd pa rt y’ s c on du ctor e xt e r nalc i r c um s t anc e . I tw as i ns t e ad s o l e l y o f hi s o w n do i ng, a nd n o ne o f o ur p r i o rd e c i s i o n s wo u l dm a n d a t e e x c u s i n gh i s fa i l u r e t o e x h a u s t . I n a n ye v e n t , we la c kth e a u t h o r i t yt o fa s h io n ag e n e r a l e q u it a b le e x c e p t io n to § 1 2 5 2 (d )’s e xha us t i o n r e quir e m e nt . I n i t s re c e ntde c i s i o n i n B o w les v. R u ss ell , 12 7 S
. C t. 236 0, 2 364 –66 (2007 ) , the S u prem e C ou rtem ph asi zed t h at there i s a d i st i n ct i on betw een precond i t i on s t o app ealt h at are si m pl y m an da t ory an d those t h at are m andat or y andj u ri sdi ct i on al
. Th e f o rm e r are t h ose c reat ed bycourtrul e or j udi c i aldec i si on, w hi l e the l att ers t em f r om j uri sdi c t i onall i m i t at i ons t hat C o n g r e s s h a s s ta tu to r ilycr e a te d
. I d. a t 2 3 6 5 ; seea lso Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mart i n ez , 4 9 6 F .3 d3 8 7 , 3 8 8

– 8 9 (5 th C ir .) (p e rcu r ia m ), cer tden i ed , 1 2 8 S
. C t. 7 2 8 (20 0 7 ). T h u s, t h e B ow lesC o u r th e ldt h a tF e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e ll a t e P r o c e d u r e 4 (a )( 6 )’s l i m i to n r e o pe ni ng t he t i m e f o rf i l i ng a n ot i ce of

appe alw as am and at o r y and j ur i s di c t i o nalr e quir e m e ntb e c aus e i t i m pl e m e nt e d 28 U
. S. C. § 2 10 7(c )
. 1 27 S. C t. a t 2 3 6 3
. F a ilu r e to c o m p ly w ith th e s ta tu to r yre q u ir e m e n t e m b o d ie dinR u le 4 (a )(6 ), th e n , d e p r iv e s a c o u r t of ju r is d ic tio n . I d. a t2 36 6. I n l i ne w i t h B ow les , w e ha ve h el d that Fed eralR u l e of A pp el l ate P rocedure 4(b) ( 1) (A) ’ s t i m e l i m i tf or filin gn o tic e s o f a p p e a l incr im in a l c a s e s is m a n d a to r y , b u t n o t ju r is d ic tio n a l, b e c a u s e it d o e s n o t e ffe c tu a te as ta tu to r ily -im p o s e dlim it. Mart i n ez , 496 F. 3d at 388–89. T h e di st i n ct i on b e t w e e n tho se r equ i rem en t s t h at are m an da t ory an d those t hatar e m andat or y andj u ri s di c t i o nali s i m po r t antb e c aus e , a c c o r di ng t o t he B ow lesC ou rt, w e h a ve “ n o a u th ority to crea te eq u i tab l e ex cep ti on s to j u ri sdi ct i on alrequi rem en t s. ” 127 S
. C t . at 236 6. W h i l e w e can i n vok e doct ri n esN o. 07- 60814

15 suc h as w aiveroreq ui t abl e e xc use w hen a par t y fai l s t o co m pl y w i t h j udi c i al l yc r e at e d pr ude nt i alpr e c o ndit i o ns t o appe al , w e ca nno tcr e at e ouro w n e xc e pt i o ns t o aj uri sdi c t i onalbar thatC ongr es s— w i t hi n t he bo und s of i t s c ons t i t ut i onal au t h orit y— h as explicit l y setout i n a st atute. T h re e circ u its h a v e re ce n tlyex a m in e d§ 1 2 5 2 (d) i n li g h t of B ow les . In G rullon v. Mu ka sey , 5 0 9 F .3 d1 0 7 , 1 1 4 (2 dC ir . 2 0 0 7 ), cer tden i ed , 129 S. C t . 43 (2 0 0 8 ), ap e tit io n e ra s k e dt h e S e c o n dC ir c u it t o e x c u s e h is fa ilu r e to e x h a u s t in l i ghtof t he “ m ani fes ti nj ust i c e” t hatw oul d s t em f r om d i sm i ss al
. Though r ec ogni zi ng t he pot ent i alm er i t s of t he pet i t i oner ’ s r eques t , t he c our thel d t hat t h ere w as “ n o ‘ m an i fest i nj u st i ce’ excepti on t o § 125 2( d)’ s ex h a u sti on requ i rem en t” af

t er B ow les . I

d. a t 1 1 5
. A c c o r d in g to th e S e c o n dC ir c u it, “B ow les b r o a d lyd is c la im s th e a u th o r ityo f th e fe d e r a l co u r ts to cr e a te e q u ita b le ex cep ti on s to j u ri sd i cti on a lreq u i rem en ts. ” I d. at 116 ( qu o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ). Si m i l ar l y, i n Bah v
. Mu ka sey , 5 2 1 F
. 3 d85 7 , 85 9 ( 8 thC i r. 20 0 8 ), the E i gh th C i r c ui tr e l i e d o n B ow lesi n ref u si n g t o cr eate a f

u t i l i t y excepti on t o § 12 5 2 (d ). And i n Massi s v. Mu ka sey , 5 4 9 F .3 d6 3 1 , 6 4 0 ( 4 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), th e F o u r th C ir c u it i nvo ke d B ow lesi n hol di n g t h at th ere w as n o “ m i scarr i age of j u st i ce” excepti on to § 1 2 5 2 (d). A c c o r d in gt o th e s e cir c u its , co u r ts ca n n o t “ c r e a te a n e q u ita b le ex cep ti on to [ § 1 2 5 2 (d)] ’ s ex h a u sti on req u i rem en t. ” I d. W e a g r e e , a n dh o ldth a tw e la c kth e a u t h o r it yt o e q u it a b lye x c u s e ap a r t y ’s fai l ure t o s at i sf

y § 1252( d) ’ s exhaust i on r equi r em ent . Forthi s c our tt o have ju r is d ic tio n o v e ra n is s u e th a t t h e B IAh a s a d e q u a te m e a n s o f a d d r e s s in g , a pe t i t i o ne rm us ta de qua t e ly r ai s e t hati s s ue be f o r e t he B IA. So l o ng as itr e m ai ns a st atutor y j u ri sd icti on albar w i t h ou tan y al l ow an ce of excepti on s, com pl i an ce w it h § 1 2 5 2 (d ) is n e c e s s a r y . W e t h e r e fo r e h a v e n o a u t h o r it y t o e x c u s e O m a r i’s fai l u re to ex h a u st. W e rec ogn i ze t h at our r u l i n g i m poses a st ri ctex h au st i on requ i rem en ton t ho s e pe t i t i o ni ng t hi s c o ur tt o r e vi e w aBI A or de r . W e c o ul d b r us h o f f a nyN o. 07- 60814

16 c o nc e r ns o ve r t hi s s t r i c t ne s s by no t i ng, as t he Supr e m e Cour tdi d i n B ow les , t hat

“ [i] f ri gorous rules l i ke the on e app l ied to d a ya re th ou gh tt o be i n equ i t able, C o n g r e s s m a ya u th o r iz e co u r ts to p r o m u lg a te ru le s th a t e x c u s e co m p lia n c e .” 127 S. C t . a t 2 3 6 7
. B u tw e t h i n k i tbett er t o sugg estt h at s u ch a construct i on m akes s ound j uri sdi c t i onals ens e. O ur r ul i ng s houl d i ncr eas e the li kel ihood that cl ai m s w i l lbe adeq u ately ad dr e s s e d at t h e adm i n i st rat ive l evel , renderi n g resor t t o t hi s co ur tunne c e s s ar y. I n t ho s e c as e s t hatdoc o m e t o o urc o ur t , t he ar gum e nt s w i l ll i ke l y be b e t t e rr e f i ne d i n li ghto f

t he i rpr e s e n t ati o n t o a nd resol u t i on by the B IA
. A n d perh ap s m ostim portantly, today ’ s r u l i n g provi des c l e argui da nc e t o t ho s e pr o c e e di ng be f o r e t he B IA o f

t he ne c e s s i t y o f

e xha us t i o n, s uc h t hatt he y w i l lb e a bl e t o a vo i d the pit fall s t hatpr e ve ntus f r o m a ddr e s s i ng t he m e r i t s o f

t he pr e s e ntpe t i t i o n.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON R egard i n gth e is sues t h at he now petit i on s t h i s c ou rtt o add ress , O m ari h a s fa i l edto exh a u st allad m i n i strative re m ed i es a va i l a b l e to h i m as o f ri gh t. Bec aus e t hi s fail ur e t o e xha us tde pr ive s t hi s c o ur to f j ur i s di c t i o n, w e D I SM I SS Oma r i ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. DI S M I S S ED
.