Olmstead Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Washington

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the Board correctly deemed CAT claim forfeited where petitioner mentioned the issue only in the introduction and conclusion and presented no argument
• holding that the petitioner had waived any challenge to the IJ’s merits determination because a “review of [the petitioner’s] brief to the BIA confirms that he did not argue that he was entitled to relief”
• concluding that the BIA did not err in concluding that the petitioner waived an issue where a review of the brief to the BIA confirmed that he did not make an argument about that issue
• holding that there was no error in the BIA’s waiver determination
• holding that review of the petitioner’s brief to the BIA confirmed that he failed to argue he was entitled to CAT relief before the BIA, and thus the BIA properly found he did not challenge the IJ’s CAT determination
• determining that a CAT claim was unexhausted when it “was mentioned only twice in [the petitioner’s] brief to the BIA, in the introduction and in the conclusion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).