Opinion ID: 42668
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Raise the Argument with the BIA

Text: 14 The INS argues in its brief that the BIA's decision was formed without the benefit of Momin's supplemental argument and that, because he did not timely raise the argument with the BIA, it is waived. 6 We have addressed the failure of a petitioner to seek relief before the BIA: When a petitioner seeks to raise a claim not presented to the BIA and the claim is one that the BIA has adequate mechanisms to address and remedy, the petitioner must raise the issue in a motion to reopen prior to resorting to review by the courts. Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383, 390 (5th Cir.2001). Momin contends that there are no adequate mechanisms to address and remedy his claim before the BIA because the BIA lacks jurisdiction to consider the validity of regulations promulgated under the INA. 15 The BIA has stated that regulations promulgated under the INA have the force and effect of law as to [the BIA] and the Immigration Judges. In re Shanu, 23 I. & N. Dec. 754, 758 (BIA 2005) (citing In re Fede, 20 I. & N. Dec. 35, 36 (BIA 1989)). Momin's argument is supported by several unpublished BIA decisions in which the BIA declined to follow Succar because the regional court of appeals had not adopted the Succar reasoning and the BIA remained bound by the regulations. See, e.g., In re Toussaint, No. Awq-ykf-ywg, 2006 WL 211046 (BIA 2006) (unpublished); In re Meza-Cota, No. Akm-mqr-ins, 2005 WL 3802109 (BIA 2005) (unpublished); In re Cheng, No. Akg-saq-znr, 2005 WL 698333 (BIA 2005) (unpublished). 16 The question presented is purely a matter of law. Under our waiver jurisprudence, the failure to raise such an issue below does not necessarily subject it to waiver: This court may exercise its discretion to consider pure issues of law not raised below. Freudensprung v. Offshore Technical Servs., Inc., 379 F.3d 327, 338 n. 5 (5th Cir.2004). See also Atl. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Truck Ins. Exch., 797 F.2d 1288, 1293 (5th Cir.1986) (An issue raised for the first time on appeal generally is not considered unless it involves a purely legal question or failure to consider it would result in a miscarriage of justice.). Accordingly, we will consider this pure legal issue—the validity of 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(8).