Opinion ID: 2753112
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Waiver of Argument

Text: During a hearing before the IJ, counsel for Vargas stated, “[w]e have to concede regarding the issue of 212(h).” The IJ then asked, “[s]o you’re conceding that he’s not eligible,” and counsel reiterated, “[t]hat is correct, Your Honor. They have provided a case right on point.”7 Despite his concession, Vargas later argued in his appeal to the BIA that “[t]he [IJ] erred in denying [his] application for 212(h) waiver based on [the IJ’s] reliability [sic] on Matter of Rotimi.” The BIA held that Vargas had conceded the argument and could not “challenge the factual findings or legal conclusions of the Immigration Judge that arose from [his] admission.” Nevertheless, the BIA considered the merits of Vargas’s argument and concluded that Vargas did not adequately explain why Rotimi does not apply to his case. An applicant’s failure to properly raise an issue to the BIA generally constitutes a failure to exhaust, thus depriving us of jurisdiction to consider the issue. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004). That said, we “may review any issue addressed on the merits by the BIA, regardless whether it was raised to the BIA by the petitioner.” Rodriguez-Castellon v. Holder, 733 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, --- S. Ct. ----, 2014 WL 1751502 (Oct. 7 The “case right on point” was Rotimi. 12 VARGAS CERVANTES V. HOLDER 14, 2014) (No. 13-9961); see also Sagermark v. INS, 767 F.2d 645, 648 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that an issue that was not technically before the BIA on the merits may be considered exhausted if the BIA considered the merits of the IJ’s decision). Because the BIA addressed Vargas’s claim— despite his concession—we are satisfied that we have jurisdiction to consider Vargas’s argument regarding Rotimi.