Background
Aura Lopez-Lopez, a Guatemalan national, entered the United States illegally in two thousand and six. She was later convicted in Nebraska of negligently abusing her teenage stepdaughter, which led to removal proceedings. She applied for cancellation of removal, but the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied her relief, ruling that her conviction constituted a crime of child abuse under federal law.
The court’s reasoning
The court explained that administrative exhaustion is required when proceedings are adversarial and the petitioner is represented by counsel. Lopez-Lopez had counsel and argued against removability, yet she never raised two specific issues before the agency: that the agency relied on the wrong statute and that the petty-offense exception might apply. The court noted it is a court of review, not a court of first view, and cannot decide issues the agency never had a chance to consider.
Without having raised these issues before, Lopez-Lopez has left us nothing to decide.
Aura Lopez-Lopez v. Todd Blanche, 25-1924 (8th Cir. July 7, 2026)
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces the strict requirement that immigration petitioners must raise all legal defenses and statutory arguments during administrative proceedings to avoid waiver. It limits the ability of courts to consider new legal theories on appeal that were not presented to the agency.