Sidabutar v. Gonzales

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that challenges to “the BIA’s allegedly de novo [fact]finding” were unexhausted because they “should have been brought before the BIA in the first instance through a motion to reconsider or reopen”
• noting that the petitioner “should have brought [the unexhausted claims] before the BIA in the first instance through a motion to reconsider or reopen”
• characterizing the failure to raise new issues before the BIA by way of a motion to reconsider or reopen as a failure to exhaust
• “[W]e generally assert jurisdiction only over those arguments that a petitioner properly presents to the BIA.”
• “[W]e generally assert jurisdiction only over those arguments that a petitioner properly presents to the BIA.”
• “Of course, this [exception] should be construed narrowly to circumstances where the BIA issues a full explanatory opinion or a discernible substantive discussion on the merits over matters not presented by the alien.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).