Background
Ben-Tov Tzarchei, an Israeli citizen, sought special rule cancellation of removal for battered spouses under Section two thousand four hundred A of the Immigration and Nationality Act. An Immigration Judge denied his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that denial, ruling that his second wife did not qualify as a spouse because he had not dissolved his prior marriage at the time of the second wedding. Tzarchei appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the agency erred by not recognizing putative spouses in void or voidable marriages.
The court’s reasoning
The court found that Tzarchei’s sole argument before the Board of Immigration Appeals concerned his ability to prove the validity of his divorce and second marriage. He did not present the legal argument that the term spouse includes putative spouses in void or voidable marriages until his brief in this court. Because he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies regarding this specific legal claim, the court could not consider it. The court noted that the government properly invoked this failure to comply with the mandatory claim-processing rule.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the strict requirement that immigration petitioners must raise all legal arguments before the Board of Immigration Appeals before seeking judicial review. It prevents courts from addressing new legal theories regarding statutory interpretation that were not previously presented to the agency.