Opinion ID: 2981289
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Request to Admit New Evidence

Text: 11 No. 11-3583 Petitioner also argues that the IJ erroneously denied Petitioner’s motion to admit additional evidence and testimony. Petitioner contends that the new evidence was relevant and material and supported his application for adjustment of status and furthermore, counsel never requested the proffered evidence. As an initial matter, there is no evidence in the record that Petitioner raised this issue on appeal to the BIA. Petitioner’s brief also does not address whether he raised this issue to the BIA. “[T]o the extent that [a petitioner] has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to certain claims, this court does not have jurisdiction to address those claims.” Ramani v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 554, 558 (6th Cir. 2006). Even assuming that Petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies, the record does not compel us to conclude that the IJ’s decision to deny Petitioner’s motion was erroneous. In its order denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen the record, the IJ explained that “the parties had adequate opportunity to present all pertinent evidence in this matter” and a further delay would disrupt the evidentiary hearing process. The additional evidence that Petitioner requested did not go to the heart of Petitioner’s claim that he was entitled to an adjustment of status. Rather, the new evidence included medical records of his wife and his mother, which was immaterial and does not rebut the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. See Ilic-Lee v. Mukasey, 507 F.3d 1044, 1049–50 (6th Cir. 2007) (BIA denied the motion to reopen because “the petitioner submitted ‘minimal and insufficient’ documentation to establish the bona fides of her marriage”). Moreover, even if the IJ was to consider the new evidence, it would not overcome Petitioner’s general lack of credibility. Therefore, we affirm the IJ’s decision to deny Petitioner’s request to submit additional evidence. 12 No. 11-3583