Arsdi v. Holder

When an alien fails to raise an issue to the BIA, nor claim that the IJ's decision "contains a factually invalid statement of law or fact," the appellate court has no jurisdiction to consider the claim as the alien did not exhaust the issue in the proper administrative forum.

Arsdi is a native citizen of Ethiopia and became a legal permanent resident of the United States in 2005. In 2006, seventeen-year-old Arsdi and a friend robbed two men at gunpoint. Arsdi admitted that "he drove the car, held the gun, and collected the spoils." Arsdi was charged as an adult with armed robbery, "a Class 2 felony with a presumptive punishment of five years incarceration." In 2009, Arsdi was charged as removable based upon his conviction for an aggravated felony. Arsdi "conceded removability but applied for asylum and withholding of removal." The immigration judge ("IJ") "concluded that because his armed robbery was 'particularly serious,' Arsdi was statutory ineligible for relief." The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed the IJ's decision and Arsdi appealed claiming that "the IJ failed to apply the appropriate standard to determine whether his crime was 'particularly serious.'" The Ninth Circuit held that Arsdi's claim could not be considered "because Arsdi failed to raise it before the BIA." The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the appellate courts have jurisdiction to review only if the alien "has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right." Arsdi did not exhaust his claim to the BIA that the IJ "applied the wrong standard to determine whether his crime was "particularly serious." DISMISSED.