Opinion ID: 203402
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mental Illness Claim

Text: The BIA declined to address Kechichian's mental illness argument because [w]e are an appellate body, and we will not address arguments raised for the first time on appeal. The agency's responses to abstract legal questions and its application of the law are matters that invite de novo review, with deference accorded to its reasonable interpretation of statutes and regulations within its purview. Segran v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2007). Kechichian did not ever suggest that there was a mental illness aspect to her claim in her application for relief, her affidavit, or her testimony before the IJ. Her only basis for arguing that this claim was presented to the IJ is the reference to Armenia's treatment of the mentally ill in the psychiatric evaluation prepared by a forensic nurse and included in the record before the IJ. This evaluation focused on the nurse's observations of Kechichian and noted in passing the possibility of discrimination against the mentally ill and fewer treatment options in Armenia. The evaluation explicitly stated that it was not Kechichian herself who raised this issue: While not specifically identified by [Kechichian], her reluctance to discuss her psychiatric symptoms is consistent with reports that the mentally ill are often shunned by their communities in Armenia. It was not error for the BIA to determine that the argument was waived. See Estrada-Canales v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 208, 220 (1st Cir.2006). Kechichian also asserts that the IJ's failure to consider the mental illness aspect of her claim violated her right to due process. We cannot consider this argument because she failed to present it to the BIA and it does not qualify for one of the few narrow exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. Kandamar v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 65, 71 (1st Cir.2006). Kechichian further claims that the BIA's refusal to consider her mental illness claim violated her right to due process at the BIA level. This argument clearly fails. An alien has no constitutional right to any administrative appeal at all. Albathani v. INS, 318 F.3d 365, 376 (1st Cir.2003).