Putu Indrawati v. U.S. Attorney General

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that administrative USCA11 Case: 20-14757 Date Filed: 11/10/2021 Page: 12 of 12 exhaustion requires the petitioner to “have previously argued the ‘core issue now on appeal’ before the BIA.”
• explaining that exhaustion “is not a stringent requirement” and is satisfied if the petitioner “previously argued the ‘core issue now on appeal’ before the BIA”
• providing that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review and consider claims that were not raised before the BIA
• concluding that a petitioner need not exhaust an argument that the BIA’s decision lacked reasoned consideration because, when appealing to the BIA, a petitioner cannot “rais[e] an argument about the lack of reasoned consideration displayed by a [BIA] decision not yet in existence”
• explaining that the IJ and the BIA give “reasoned consideration” when they “considered the issues raised and announced their decisions in terms sufficient to enable review”
• stating that exhaustion “is not a stringent requirement” and simply requires an alien to have “argued the core issue now on appeal before the BIA” (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).