09-3378 Muratoski v. Holder

Listen to this article

Immigration
Exhaustion

Where an alien did not preserve an argument before the BIA, he cannot raise it on appeal.
“The government is correct that Muratoski did not exhaust the argument he makes now because he did not raise it in his motion to reconsider. In the motion to reconsider, Muratoski did not contend that the Board misconstrued Section 1101(f) but rather complained that the Board addressed parts of Section 1101 on which the IJ had not relied. He wished the Board to reconsider the IJ’s conclusions only on the grounds the IJ had considered. He did not cite Guadarrama de Contreras in the motion to reconsider, much less argue that the Board had misconstrued this precedent in its May 22, 2008 decision. We therefore may not consider this argument because Muratoski failed to exhaust all administrative remedies available to him as of right. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (a ‘court may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.’). As Muratoski makes no other argument in his petition to this court, we must deny the petition.”

Petition Denied.

09-3378 Muratoski v. Holder

Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Rovner, J.

Full Text