Opinion ID: 6111810
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consideration of New Arguments on Appeal

Text: The BIA has “long held” it “generally will not consider an argument or claim that could have been, but was not, advanced before the Immigration Judge.” Matter of W-Y-C- & H- O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 190 (BIA 2018); see also Matter of J-J- G-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 808, 814 n.8 (BIA 2020). Regulation obligates the BIA to abide by this practice. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g). Failure to do so warrants remand. See Avila-Ramirez, 764 F.3d at 725. This case presents a highly unusual procedural posture. The government lost before the IJ, appealed to the BIA, and raised new arguments for the first time on appeal. The government suggests only the party with the burden of proof— here, Osmani—is limited on appeal to arguments presented to the IJ. Nothing in BIA precedent suggests this limitation is unilateral, applying only to applicants or the party with the burden of proof. We decline the government’s invitation to reimagine BIA precedent in this manner. Precedent restricted the BIA’s review to those arguments the government presented to the IJ. The government took no position on Osmani’s applications before the IJ. Although not obligated to do so, the government did not avail itself of the opportunity to file a prehearing statement. While the government questioned Osmani about his family, criminal history, and drug use, it never suggested the negative equities outweighed the positive. The government declined the IJ’s pre-ruling invitation to question 8 No. 20-3318 Osmani further. After the IJ ruled, the government merely stated its desire to preserve the right to appeal without specifying what grounds it might raise. At no point during the proceeding before the IJ did the government indicate it objected to Osmani’s applications, why it did so, or suggest Osmani failed to meet his burden. The government raised two new challenges to the IJ’s decision before the BIA. First, the government contended the IJ erred as a matter of law in granting Osmani a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(c) based on family unity. Osmani, the government argued, failed to provide sufficient evidence of the existence of a family unit. Second, the government claimed the IJ erred as a matter of discretion in balancing the positive and negative equities. According to the government, Osmani’s criminal and drug history outweighed any positive equities favoring his applications. These arguments comprised the entirety of the government’s appeal before the BIA. While it might have, the government advanced neither of these positions before the IJ. Established BIA caselaw precludes “consider[ation of] an argument or claim that could have been, but was not, advanced before the Immigration Judge” by Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 190. The BIA accepted the government’s second argument—that the IJ improperly balanced the equities—and reversed the IJ, finding “the adverse factors outweighed the positive factors in this case.” In doing so, the BIA committed legal error.