Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortappealasylumjudicial review
hearing

Related Cases

Etchu-Njang v. Gonzales
View Case »
Granados v. Garland
View Case »
Ponce-Osorio v. Johnson
View Case »
Hang Chen v. Holder
View Case »
Hanif v. Gantner
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Steevenez v. Gonzales

Facts

Steevenez, a 39-year-old ethnic Chinese and practicing Pentecostal Christian from Jakarta, Indonesia, experienced threats and violence from Muslim extremists due to his ethnicity and religion. He entered the United States in 2000 and applied for asylum, claiming persecution. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found him ineligible for asylum and determined that he was not likely to face persecution if returned to Indonesia, citing improved conditions and the lack of violence against his family since his departure.

Steevenez, 39-years-old as of his 2004 hearing before the IJ, is married and a native of Jakarta, Indonesia. He is ethnic Chinese and a practicing Pentecostal Christian. Steevenez owned a printing business in Jakarta. At his hearing before the IJ, Steevenez testified that, while living in Jakarta, he suffered repeated incidents of threats, intimidation, and violence at both his home and place of business at the hands of Muslim extremists on account of his ethnicity and religion.

Issue

Did Steevenez exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture?

Did Steevenez exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the argument he now raises before this Court in support of his withholding of removal claim?

Rule

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 per 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 . . . . 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1).

Analysis

The court found that Steevenez did not adequately raise the issue of his ability to safely relocate within Indonesia in his appeal to the BIA. Although he argued that the IJ erred in finding that safe relocation was possible, he failed to address this issue specifically in his brief. The court noted that the ability to relocate safely is a distinct issue from the question of changed country conditions, and since Steevenez acknowledged he could relocate safely, he did not exhaust his administrative remedies.

Thus, we cannot hold that where, as here, an alien addresses only the issue of changed country conditions in his brief to the BIA, he somehow raises by implication the issue of his ability to relocate in safety, especially where he has acknowledged before the IJ, as Steevenez did, that he could relocate in safety.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for review, concluding that Steevenez failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding both his withholding of removal and CAT claims.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because Steevenez did not exhaust his administrative remedies, which is a prerequisite for judicial review.

The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ's decision. With respect to withholding of removal, the BIA held that in his brief to the board Steevenez failed to challenge the IJ's finding that, if there is a risk of persecution, it is localized, and relocation within Indonesia is a viable option for Steevenez.

You must be