Opinion ID: 213498
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Initially, we consider our jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The government claims appellate jurisdiction is lacking in that Vasquez did not effectively exhaust his administrative claims because -3- he failed to challenge the IJ’s order of removal to Mexico before the BIA. We “may review a final order of removal only if” the petitioner “has exhausted all administrative remedies available to [him] as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2005); Madrigal v. Holder, 572 F.3d 239, 243 (6th Cir. 2009). To fulfill the exhaustion requirement the petitioner must “first argue each claim before the IJ or the BIA”; failure to do so strips the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision. Csekinek v. I.N.S., 391 F.3d 819, 822 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)). Although Vasquez did not submit a brief to the BIA regarding his assertion that the IJ erred in denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal, the BIA considered Vasquez’s appeal on the merits. When the BIA issued its decision dismissing his appeal, it precluded Vasquez from seeking further administrative relief; as a consequence, he has effectively exhausted all available administrative remedies. Madrigal, 572 F.3d at 243. Thus, we have jurisdiction to address Vasquez’s appeal.