Opinion ID: 797512
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The BIA's Procedural Bar

Text: 39 The BIA determined that Torres's consular notification argument was not presented to the IJ and thus the argument was waived. On a petition for review to this court[,] we will not permit the petitioner to circumvent proper procedural requirements of the BIA by presenting contentions that were procedurally barred by the Board. Galvez Pineda v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 833, 837 (10th Cir.2005). In this petition, Torres claims that a review at the BIA is de novo, and the BIA cited no case law or regulation in support of the procedural default it applied for the first time in the Torres case. Aplt. Br. at 54-55. We find this contention unpersuasive. 40 The BIA has held that matters not raised before an IJ are not preserved on appeal. See In re RSH-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 629, 638 (B.I.A.2003) (The record does not reflect that the respondent raised any objections to the attorneys' presence at the hearing. Therefore, the respondent waived his opportunity to pursue this issue on appeal.); In re Fidel Jimenez-Santillano, 21 I. & N. Dec. 567, 570 n. 2 (B.I.A. 1996) (The record reflects, however, that this issue was neither raised before, nor ruled upon by the Immigration Judge. Therefore, we will not decide the issue, for it is not properly before us.); Matter of Edwards, 20 I. & N. Dec. 191, 196 n. 4 (B.I.A.1990) ([B]ecause the respondent did not object to the entry of this document into evidence at the hearing below, it is not appropriate for him to object on appeal.); Matter of Garcia-Reyes, 19 I. & N. Dec. 830, 832 (B.I.A.1988) (It is clear that objections themselves should be made on the record, or such objections will not be preserved for appeal.). 41 The BIA's waiver rule, as with most appellate bodies, is wholly consistent with its rules of practice. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d) (The Board shall function as an appellate body charged with the review of those administrative adjudications under the Act.). As we have noted in analyzing the waiver doctrine in a different context: 42 In order to preserve the integrity of the appellate structure, we should not be considered a second-shot forum, a forum where secondary, back-up theories may be mounted for the first time. Parties must be encouraged to give it everything they've got at the trial level. Thus, an issue must be presented to, considered and decided by the trial court before it can be raised on appeal. 43 Tele-Communications, Inc. v. Commissioner, 104 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir.1997) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 44 These reasons apply with equal force to the BIA. Like circuit courts, the BIA's ability to engage in fact-finding is limited, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3) (The Board will not engage in de novo review of findings of fact determined by an immigration judge.), and the failure to raise an issue before the IJ properly waives the argument on appeal to the BIA. We thus agree that the doctrine of waiver can appropriately be applied by the BIA under its rules and precedent. 10 45 Since Torres failed to raise the regulatory right of consular notification before the IJ, the BIA properly concluded the issue was procedurally barred. For the same reasons as the BIA, we decline to reach the issue.