Seventh Circuit Denies Petition for Failure to Exhaust Arguments Before the Board

The Seventh Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Mexican mother and her children who fled after the Knights Templar cartel threatened to kidnap the children unless a ransom was paid, holding that the petitioner forfeited her arguments on appeal by failing to adequately develop them before the Board.

Although the immigration judge found the petitioner credible, the Court held that her four-paragraph brief to the Board never articulated her proposed social group, never engaged with the judge's finding that the cartel's threats were motivated by ordinary extortion rather than a protected ground, and never challenged the judge's findings on internal relocation or an objectively reasonable fear of future harm. Because exhaustion requires presenting an argument with enough detail to give the Board a fair opportunity to address it, not merely referencing the adverse ruling, the Court held her asylum, withholding, and CAT claims were all foreclosed.

The full text of Gonzalez Perez v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D09-08/C:23-2811:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:3604650:S:0

Eighth Circuit Denies Review Where Cancellation of Removal Arguments Were Not Exhausted

The Eighth Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Guatemalan woman found ineligible for cancellation of removal based on a Nebraska conviction for negligent child abuse of her stepdaughter. Before the agency, she argued only that her conviction did not match the generic federal definition of a crime of child abuse; before the court, she raised entirely new arguments, including that the agency relied on the wrong statutory provision and overlooked a petty-offense exception.

The Court held that these new arguments were unexhausted because the petitioner never raised them in her adversarial, counseled proceedings before the immigration judge and the Board. Since a reviewing court is one of review and not first view, the Court declined to consider arguments the agency never had the opportunity to address and denied the petition.

The full text of Lopez-Lopez v. Blanche can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/07/251924P.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds Notice of Appeal Insufficiently Specific

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Notice of Appeal that states that an Immigration Judge’s decision was “wrongfully made” was insufficient to put the Board of Immigration Appeals on notice that the appellant was raising a due process claim.

The full text of Santana-Gonzalez v. Bondi can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/08/16-70793.pdf

Fourth Circuit Directs BIA to Consider Child's Age in Persecution Analysis

The Fourth Circuit, in an en banc decision, has determined that the agency must consider a child’s age when determining whether harm he suffered rose to the level of persecution. The court also acknowledged that an issue may be exhausted by virtue of the agency addressing it in its decision, even if not raised in detail in the briefing before the agency. Notably, the court also determined that the issue of government protection was raised in the Notice of Appeal to the Board, and did not have to find exhaustion based solely on the Board’s analysis of the issue.

The full text of Portillo Flores v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/191591A.P.pdf

First Circuit Addresses Equitable Tolling and Jurisdictional Issues for Motions to Reopen

Earlier this week, the First Circuit issued a decision in Wan v. Holder.  Wan challenged the denial of a motion to reopen.  The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denied the motion, in part, because Wan had not exercised the due diligence necessary to toll the 180-day filing deadline for an exceptional circumstances motion to reopen.  On appeal to the circuit, Wan challenged this finding, and also asserted that the Board engaged in impermissible fact-finding.

The First Circuit determined that it lacked jurisdiction to determine if the Board had engaged in impermissible fact-finding because Wan had not properly exhausted this argument.  Instead, Wan needed to raise this argument in a motion to reconsider before the Board, and thus, give the Board the opportunity to consider the issue.  In so holding, the court joined the Fifth and Tenth Circuit's decisions on this issue.

Turning to Wan's request to toll the filing deadline for a motion to reopen, the court noted that whether the doctrine of equitable tolling applied in immigration proceedings remained an open question.  It declined to decide the issue, finding that in any event, Wan had not exercised the requisite due diligence to invoke the equitable tolling doctrine.

Interestingly, the court proceeded to issue a decision in this case, despite a motion informing the court of Wan's intention to apply for administrative relief under the newly-announced Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program.  

The follow text of the decision can be found here: http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/13-1893P-01A.pdf