684 F. App'x 802
11th Cir.2017Background
- Marco Grimaldo-Rubiano, a naturalized Venezuelan who was born in Cali, Colombia in 1975, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in the U.S.
- DHS submitted evidence (quoting the 1991 Colombian Constitution) indicating Colombian citizenship cannot be lost by acquiring another nationality; Grimaldo-Rubiano had a Colombian birth certificate and entered Venezuela on a Colombian passport and later naturalized as Venezuelan at age 16.
- The immigration judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, finding Grimaldo-Rubiano remained a Colombian citizen and thus had an alternative country of nationality.
- The BIA alternatively found he failed to prove past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in Venezuela.
- Grimaldo-Rubiano raised several additional challenges on review (procedural errors, exhibit authority, and failure to develop evidence), which the court found were not exhausted administratively.
- The Eleventh Circuit denied the petition in part (on the merits as to relief eligibility) and dismissed parts for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grimaldo-Rubiano is ineligible for asylum/withholding because he remains a Colombian citizen (alternative country of nationality) | Grimaldo-Rubiano asserted he was persecuted in Venezuela and sought relief; contended the DHS exhibit was non-authoritative and citizenship should not bar relief | DHS produced constitutional text and evidence showing Colombian citizenship endures after naturalization elsewhere; thus Colombia is an available country of nationality | Court held substantial evidence supports Colombian citizenship; therefore he is ineligible for asylum and withholding because he has an alternative country of nationality |
| Whether Grimaldo-Rubiano proved refugee status (well-founded fear of persecution) | Argued he had a fear of persecution in Venezuela warranting refugee status | DHS/ BIA found he failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear in Venezuela and presented no fear of persecution in Colombia | Court held he did not qualify as a refugee and thus failed to meet asylum standards; also failed withholding/CAT standards |
| Whether procedural/regulatory errors in removal proceedings merit relief | Argued IJ/DHS violated 8 C.F.R. §1240.10(c),(d) and other procedural errors | DHS/BIA noted these claims were not raised before the BIA and that Grimaldo-Rubiano conceded removability | Court dismissed these claims for lack of exhaustion and therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider them |
| Whether the DHS exhibit was non-authoritative or the IJ erred in not requiring more evidence | Argued the exhibit was non-authoritative and IJ should have compelled additional DHS evidence | DHS evidence went unchallenged at hearing and issues were not raised on appeal to the BIA | Court dismissed these contentions for failure to object/exhaust; they are not considered on review |
Key Cases Cited
- Amaya–Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir.) (administrative exhaustion is required for appellate review of removal proceeding claims)
- Zheng v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir.) (withholding of removal and CAT relief require higher showing than asylum)