Opinion ID: 65013
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Minnesota Assault Conviction

Text: Omari did not appeal the IJ's determination that his Minnesota assault conviction was a crime of domestic violence and a crime involving moral turpitude. Moreover, Omari did not challenge this determination in his brief before the BIA. His failure to do so is a failure to exhaust, jurisdictionally barring us from addressing the merits. Granted, Omari did raise the issues regarding his Minnesota assault conviction in his motion for reconsideration, but we find this insufficient to satisfy § 1252(d). A motion to reconsider challenges the [BIA]'s original decision and alleges that it is defective in some regard. In re O-S-G, 24 I. & N. Dec. 56, 57 (BIA 2006); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior [BIA] decision ....). A motion for reconsideration is thus confined to the substance of the BIA's original decision. It is not the proper avenue for raising new issues or arguments, and [a] motion to reconsider based on a legal argument that could have been raised earlier in the proceedings will be denied. O-S-G, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 58. Instead, the party bringing a motion for reconsideration must specify the factual and legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in [the BIA's] initial decision. Id. (emphasis added). In short, an issue raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration that could have been raised earlier has not been properly presented to the BIA. We therefore hold that improperly raising an issue for the first time in a motion for reconsideration does not satisfy § 1252(d)'s exhaustion requirement. Because Omari did not initially raise any issues regarding his Minnesota assault conviction in his brief to the BIA and the BIA did not address them in its order, Omari's arguments regarding his Minnesota assault conviction were not the proper subject of a motion for reconsideration. As such, they were never properly raised before the BIA. Omari has therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to these issues, and § 1252(d) jurisdictionally bars us from addressing them.