Brooks v. U.S. Attorney General (11th Cir. 2025): Re-affirming the Exhaustion Mandate and Clarifying “Particularly Serious Crime” Analysis in Immigration Proceedings

Introduction

Ricardo Brooks, a Jamaican national and lawful permanent resident of the United States, petitioned the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of three forms of relief: (1) asylum, (2) withholding of removal, and (3) protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

The core issues presented were:

Whether Brooks’ Florida conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon constitutes an “aggravated felony” (and thus a “particularly serious crime”) that bars asylum and withholding of removal.
Whether Brooks’ failure to raise the aggravated-felony designation before the BIA precluded the Eleventh Circuit’s review under the exhaustion requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
Whether Brooks established that he is “more likely than not” to be tortured in Jamaica for CAT purposes.

Proceeding pro se, Brooks argued that (a) his assault conviction is neither an aggravated felony nor a particularly serious crime; and (b) he faces torture in Jamaica as a bisexual man with mental-health issues.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit issued a split disposition:

Asylum – Dismissed: The panel held that Brooks did not administratively exhaust his challenge to the aggravated-felony classification because he failed to raise it before the BIA. Since the Government invoked the exhaustion bar, the court dismissed this portion of the petition.
Withholding of Removal – Denied: On the merits, the court affirmed the BIA’s conclusion that Brooks’ aggravated assault constitutes a “particularly serious crime,” rendering him statutorily ineligible for withholding.
CAT Protection – Denied: Applying the substantial-evidence standard, the court found insufficient record evidence that Brooks would more likely than not suffer government-acquiesced torture upon return to Jamaica.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411 (2023) – Confirmed that § 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement is a claim-processing rule rather than jurisdictional. The Eleventh Circuit relied on this framing to emphasize that exhaustion is mandatory once the Government raises it.
Kemokai v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 83 F.4th 886 (11th Cir. 2023) – Clarified that the Eleventh Circuit will enforce exhaustion when asserted by the Government. It also described how an IJ may determine a “particularly serious crime” when the sentence is under five years. This case supplied the blueprint for affirming the IJ’s analysis here.
Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 1138 (11th Cir. 2010) – Authorized IJs to evaluate the elements, underlying facts, and sentence in deciding PSC status. The panel cited Lapaix to reject Brooks’ objection that consideration of the arrest affidavit was improper.
Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573 (2020) – Held that courts retain jurisdiction to review factual challenges to CAT denials. The Eleventh Circuit invoked Nasrallah to review (and ultimately affirm) the factual findings against Brooks.
Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2005) – Provided the “substantial evidence” standard applicable to factual findings, guiding the court’s deference on the CAT claim.

2. Legal Reasoning

a) Exhaustion as a Claim-Processing Rule

Under § 1252(d)(1), petitioners must exhaust each “issue” before the BIA. Per Santos-Zacaria, the rule is non-jurisdictional, but it is still mandatory when the Government invokes it. Brooks, represented by counsel before the BIA, never contested the IJ’s aggravated-felony finding. When the Government raised the exhaustion defense in the Eleventh Circuit, the court applied Kemokai and dismissed the asylum challenge.

b) “Particularly Serious Crime” Determination

With a 16-month sentence, Brooks’ assault did not qualify for the automatic “particularly serious crime” presumption (which applies only when an aggravated-felony sentence is ≥5 years, § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iv)). The IJ therefore performed a discretionary PSC analysis. Citing Lapaix, the IJ considered:

Elements of the Florida aggravated-assault statute (involving intent to threaten with a deadly weapon).
Underlying conduct: pointing a firearm at his girlfriend and threatening to kill her and her children.
Sentence length and the record of conviction.
Mental-health history and the intimate-partner context, indicating ongoing danger.

The BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning, and the Eleventh Circuit, reviewing de novo as a “question of law” (see K.Y. v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 43 F.4th 1175), affirmed that the assault is a PSC disqualifying Brooks from withholding.

c) CAT Analysis

Brooks had to show it is “more likely than not” he would suffer torture “by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of” a public official (8 C.F.R. § 1208.18). The IJ found, and the BIA agreed, the evidence did not cross that threshold:

Country-conditions reports reflected improving state relations with LGBTQ+ individuals.
One news article and Brooks’ subjective fears were deemed insufficient to indicate government-approved torture.
No past torture or threats by Jamaican officials were documented.

Applying Nasrallah, the Eleventh Circuit could review the factual findings but concluded that substantial evidence supported the CAT denial.

3. Impact on Future Litigation

Exhaustion Enforcement: Practitioners must present every challenge—particularly aggravated-felony designations—at the BIA level. The ruling reinforces that the Eleventh Circuit will dismiss unexhausted issues once the Government objects, even though exhaustion is technically non-jurisdictional.
PSC Assessments with Short Sentences: The decision elaborates on permissible reliance on arrest affidavits, offense elements, and sentence length for convictions with sentences under five years, extending Kemokai and Lapaix.
CAT Evidentiary Threshold: The judgment emphasizes that generalized country reports or speculative fears of private harm rarely suffice absent proof of state involvement or acquiescence.
Intersection of LGBTQ+ Claims and Criminal Bars: The case demonstrates that even sympathetic characteristics (sexual orientation, mental health) cannot overcome statutory bars once a conviction is deemed a PSC.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Claim-Processing Rule vs. Jurisdictional Rule: A jurisdictional rule deprives the court of power to hear a case; a claim-processing rule can be waived but is mandatory if the opposing party insists. Exhaustion of remedies (§1252(d)(1)) is the latter.
Aggravated Felony: A class of serious offenses defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43). Certain aggravated felonies automatically foreclose asylum and may trigger PSC presumptions.
Particularly Serious Crime (PSC): A narrower bar that disqualifies a non-citizen from withholding of removal if the crime is so serious that safety concerns outweigh the individual’s fear of persecution. Automatic if the aggravated-felony sentence is ≥5 years; otherwise determined case-by-case.
Substantial Evidence Standard: Highly deferential appellate review—findings stand unless any reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to reach the opposite conclusion.
CAT “Acquiescence”: Torture must involve a public official’s consent or willful blindness. Private violence without state complicity does not meet CAT’s definition.

Conclusion

Brooks v. U.S. Attorney General fortifies two practical pillars of immigration jurisprudence in the Eleventh Circuit. First, exhaustion remains an unforgiving gatekeeper: litigants forfeiting arguments before the BIA cannot resurrect them on petition for review once the Government objects. Second, the decision clarifies that an IJ may find a “particularly serious crime,” even for sub-five-year sentences, by a holistic review of statutory elements, facts, and sentencing context. The ruling further illustrates the demanding evidentiary burden for CAT relief and the limited avenues for criminal aliens seeking humanitarian protection. Collectively, the judgment supplies pivotal guidance to immigration counsel, IJs, and the BIA when navigating convictions that straddle the aggravated-felony/PSC divide and reinforces the critical importance of meticulous issue preservation at every administrative stage.