Mahm Ibrahim v. Garland, 19f4th819

Background

Ahmed Ibrahim, an Egyptian lawful permanent resident, sent an explicit image to a person who identified herself as 13–14 and pleaded guilty in Louisiana to "indecent behavior with a juvenile" (La. Rev. Stat. § 14:81); he received a suspended five-year sentence and sex-offender registration.
The DHS placed him in removal proceedings alleging (1) aggravated felony and (2) crime of child abuse based on the § 14:81 guilty plea; criminal-court minutes establishing the plea were introduced at a bond hearing but not formally entered at the removal hearing.
Multiple immigration judges (I.J.s) and the BIA heard various aspects of removability and Ibrahim’s applications for relief (adjustment and § 212(h) waiver); the BIA remanded once to revisit the aggravated-felony claim under Esquivel-Quintana.
On later proceedings Ibrahim admitted under oath and his counsel repeatedly said he had pled guilty to § 14:81; an I.J. deemed the criminal minutes improperly in the removal record but found the government had not proven the conviction; the BIA reversed, relying on Ibrahim’s admissions and an earlier I.J. finding that he committed child abuse as the law of the case.
Ibrahim petitioned for review to this Court claiming (a) the BIA incorrectly relied on testimony and counsel filings (and that documentary evidence was required), and (b) the BIA wrongly treated the child-abuse finding as law of the case. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition, finding any BIA errors harmless.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA permissibly relied on Ibrahim’s testimony and counsel’s briefs to establish his § 14:81 conviction	Ibrahim: testimony and attorney statements are inadmissible or insufficient; regulations require documentary proof of convictions	Gov: Ibrahim admitted the plea repeatedly; BIA may consider admissions and could take administrative notice of official criminal minutes	Court: Claim exhausted; even if error, harmless because administrative notice of minutes would establish the conviction; petition denied
Whether immigration regulations require documentary evidence only to prove convictions	Ibrahim: regs limit proof of convictions to documents introduced into the record	Gov: BIA may consider other reliable evidence and take administrative notice of official records outside the record	Court: Claim exhausted but harmless error because the criminal-court minutes unequivocally show the § 14:81 plea and could be administratively noticed
Whether Ibrahim’s due-process complaint that his testimony was not probative enough was preserved	Ibrahim: testimony was not sufficiently probative; admitting it violated due process	Gov: Issue was not presented to the BIA	Court: Not exhausted; Court lacks jurisdiction to decide that specific probative/admissibility argument
Whether the BIA erred in treating the child-abuse removability finding as law of the case / refusing to permit revisitation	Ibrahim: BIA erred; I.J. could have revisited the child-abuse finding on remand	Gov: Earlier I.J. finding stood and Ibrahim repeatedly failed to meaningfully challenge it (forfeiture)	Court: Claim exhausted but any error harmless because Ibrahim forfeited meaningful challenge; BIA would have rejected the attack; removal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017) (interpretation of sexual-offense aggravated-felony statutes relied on in immigration-review remand)
Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2021) (harmless-error framework for affirming BIA despite agency mistakes)
Luna-Garcia v. Barr, 932 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2019) (standards for harmless-error review in immigration cases)
Mirza v. Garland, 996 F.3d 747 (5th Cir. 2021) (when BIA ‘‘considers an issue on the merits’’ it exhausts that issue for judicial review)
Cruz Rodriguez v. Garland, 993 F.3d 340 (5th Cir. 2021) (exhaustion required for jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1))
SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) (agency review ordinarily confined to the grounds the agency invoked)
Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015) (limits on judicially supplying reasons not relied upon by an agency)