Opinion ID: 170345
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Membership in the Muslim Brotherhood

Text: Mr., Ismaiel contends that this court should remand the case for further proceedings because the BIA and IJ failed to consider his claim that, if deported, he will be imprisoned or tortured by the Syrian government on the mistaken belief that he is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He further argues that the BIA and IJ failed to consider documentary evidence of systematic torture of members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. Mr. Ismaiel failed to present these issues in his appeal to the BIA, so we lack jurisdiction over them. See Nguyen v. INS, 991 F.2d 621, 623 n. 3 (10th Cir.1993). Mr. Ismaiel argues that he has consistently maintained that the agency failed to fully and fairly evaluate his claims based on the evidence in the record as a whole, and that [t]hat legal argument encompasses the argument that the agency failed to consider evidence supporting a particular theory. Aplt. Reply Br. at 11 n. 1. But his notice of appeal to the BIA, and his brief to the BIA, failed to mention the Muslim Brotherhood. And even if we had jurisdiction, we discern no error. The BIA is not required to `write an exegesis on every contention. What is required is merely that it consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.' Becerra-Jimenez v. INS, 829 F.2d 996, 1000 (10th Cir.1987) (quoting Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (5th Cir.1984)). That standard was satisfied.