Arsdi v. Holder, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21482

Arsdi, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, entered the United States as a minor and became a lawful permanent resident in 2005.
In 2006, at age 17, Arsdi and a friend robbed two individuals at a gas station with a pump-action shotgun; Arsdi admitted driving and handling the weapon.
Arizona charged Arsdi as an adult with armed robbery, a Class 2 felony, and he pled guilty and received a four-year sentence.
In 2009, DHS issued a Notice to Appear charging removability based on an aggravated felony conviction; Arsdi sought asylum and withholding of removal.
The IJ denied relief, concluding Arsdi’s armed robbery rendered him ineligible because the crime was 'particularly serious'; the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision.
Arsdi petitioned for review, arguing the IJ applied the wrong standard for whether his crime was 'particularly serious,' but he had not properly exhausted that issue before the BIA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Arsdi exhausted the 'particularly serious crime' issue before the BIA	Arsdi argues the IJ misapplied the standard for 'particularly serious crime'.	Government contends Arsdi did not raise that issue before the BIA and thus failed to exhaust.	Arsdi did not exhaust; court lacks jurisdiction to review the issue.

Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2004) (preserves issue by proper administrative appeal)
Tejeda-Mata v. INS, 626 F.2d 721 (9th Cir. 1980) (exhaustion requirement principle)
Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975) (agency must have opportunity to correct errors)
Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (failure to raise issue on BIA appeal defeats exhaustion)
Vargas v. U.S. Dep't of Immigration & Naturalization, 831 F.2d 906 (9th Cir. 1987) (exhaustion rule application in immigration appeals)
Cortez-Acosta v. INS, 234 F.3d 476 (9th Cir. 2000) (aliens must specify issues on appeal to exhaust remedies)
Mabugat v. INS, 937 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1991) (need not use precise legal terminology but must raise issue)
Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2002) (non-precise phrasing allowed to exhaust claim)
Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2008) (BIA may adopt IJ decision; exhaustion can be achieved if raised before BIA)
Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2005) (BIA may review despite procedural default if argued before it)
Mutuku v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency had opportunity to resolve controversy; exhaustion considerations apply)