Opinion ID: 2708798
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CAT Protection Claim

Text: “A failure to exhaust usually forecloses a petitioner from raising an issue in federal court that was not raised before the immigration tribunal.” Young Dong Kim v. Holder, 737 F.3d 1181, 1187 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Arobelidze v. Holder, 653 F.3d 513, 517 (7th Cir. 2011)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Exhausting all administrative remedies available to the alien “includes the obligation first to present to the Board any arguments that lie within its power to address.” FH‐T v. Holder, 723 F.3d 833, 841 (7th Cir. 2013). We deem exhaustion necessary for appellate review because of the importance of “provid[ing] the Board an opportunity to apply its special‐ ized knowledge and experience to the matter,” which “pro‐ vides us with reasoning to review.” FH‐T, 723 F.3d at 841 (quoting Arobelidze, 653 F.3d at 517). 8 No. 13‐2130 We agree with the Respondent that Tian did not raise to the Board any substantive arguments for why he should re‐ ceive CAT relief, and that he thus failed to exhaust the ad‐ ministrative remedies available to him with regard to this claim. Tian merely gestured to the existence of a potential CAT claim in an introductory section of his BIA brief, and made no arguments about the immigration judge’s denial of his CAT claim. The sentence stating he had applied for “re‐ lief under the UNCAT” did not provide the Board with “an opportunity to apply its specialized knowledge and experi‐ ence to the matter.” FH‐T, 723 F.3d at 841. As such, we hold that Tian failed to meet his burden of properly presenting his claim to the Board. See, e.g., El‐Gazawy v. Holder, 690 F.3d 852, 858–59 (7th Cir. 2012) (holding that an alien waived an issue presented to the Board in a form “simply too thin for the BIA to recognize it in the form the petitioner now urges us to consider”). We thus deny the CAT claim.