Background
Ruth Nohemy Avalos Perdomo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, sought review of an Immigration Judge’s denial of her asylum and withholding of removal claims. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal. The petitioner had previously advanced a different particular social group before the Immigration Judge and the Board, but proposed a new group on appeal.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that courts may review a final order of removal only if the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available as of right. Exhaustion requires that a non-constitutional legal claim be raised in the administrative proceedings below with sufficient notice to the Board. The petitioner failed to meet this requirement because she never proposed the particular social group she now claims membership in for the first time on appeal. Instead, she advanced a different group before the Immigration Judge and the Board. The court noted that it serves as a court of review, not of first view, and must deny the petition because the claim is unexhausted.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the strict exhaustion requirement in immigration appeals, preventing petitioners from introducing new legal theories or particular social groups on appeal that were not presented to the Board of Immigration Appeals.