Establishing Claim-Processing Exhaustion and Competency Safeguards in Immigration Removal Proceedings

Introduction

Marlissa Alexis Joseph, a Haitian national and self-identified member of certain protected groups, petitioned the Eleventh Circuit to review:

The Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of statutory withholding of removal and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and
The BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen proceedings.

Joseph argued that she had suffered and faced future persecution on account of her Haitian descent, her sexuality, and various particular social group memberships (Bahamian women/girls and individuals with severe mental illness). She also claimed that her mental‐health conditions (major depressive disorder, PTSD, panic attacks, anxiety) impaired her ability to present evidence, amounting to a due process violation. Finally, she maintained that she would be tortured if returned to the Bahamas.

On January 2, 2025, a three-judge Eleventh Circuit panel (per curiam) denied her petitions. The court confronted three main issues: exhaustion of administrative remedies, substantial evidence review of withholding/CAT claims, due process and competency safeguards, and the proper exercise of discretion in denying a motion to reopen.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the BIA on all fronts:

Withholding of Removal & CAT Relief: The court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s findings (adopted by the BIA) that Joseph failed to show a protected ground was “one central reason” for past persecution, and she did not meet the “more likely than not” standard for future persecution or torture.
Exhaustion: The court reinforced that INA § 242(d)(1)’s requirement to exhaust all administrative remedies is a claim-processing rule (not jurisdictional), subject to waiver and forfeiture. Joseph’s race-based withholding claim was unexhausted because she never presented it with sufficient specificity to the BIA.
Due Process & Competency: The IJ properly ordered and relied on a competency evaluation under Matter of M-A-M-. That evaluation concluded that Joseph could understand and participate in proceedings, and the IJ monitored her condition over time. No due process violation was shown.
Motion to Reopen: Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3), evidence predating the removal order is not “new,” and the post-removal evidence did not make out a prima facie case for withholding or CAT relief. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Attorney General (577 F.3d 1341): Standard of review for BIA decisions that adopt IJ reasoning.
Gonzalez v. U.S. Attorney General (820 F.3d 399): BIA’s reliance limits the scope of judicial review.
Jeune v. U.S. Attorney General (810 F.3d 792): Exhaustion requires presenting core issues and discrete arguments to the BIA.
Indrawati v. U.S. Attorney General (779 F.3d 1284): Exhaustion is not stringent but demands enough information for BIA review.
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (598 U.S. 411): INA § 242(d)(1) is a claim-processing rule, subject to waiver and forfeiture.
Kemokai v. U.S. Attorney General (83 F.4th 886): Parties must assert exhaustion to invoke it.
Perez-Zenteno v. U.S. Attorney General (913 F.3d 1301): Substantial evidence review requires affirming where evidence supports agency findings.
Ali v. U.S. Attorney General (931 F.3d 1327): BIA must “hear and think” the case; due process review.
Delgado v. U.S. Attorney General (487 F.3d 855): Standards for withholding of removal and definitions of persecution.
Lingeswaran v. U.S. Attorney General (969 F.3d 1278): Protected ground must be “one central reason” for persecution.
Matter of M-A-M- (25 I. & N. Dec. 474): Competency standard and duty to monitor mental competency throughout proceedings.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed a two-step framework:

Standard of Review:
- Legal questions (e.g., exhaustion, due process) reviewed de novo.
- Factual findings (e.g., past persecution, future risk) reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, drawing all inferences in favor of the agency.
- Denial of motions to reopen reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Application to Joseph’s Claims:
- Exhaustion: Joseph never presented her race-based withholding claim at the BIA with necessary clarity. Under Jeune and Indrawati, the BIA could not correct errors it never had the chance to address.
- Withholding & CAT: The IJ found insufficient nexus between Joseph’s protected traits and the harm. Lingeswaran’s “one central reason” test and Delgado’s definitions drove the analysis.
- Due Process & Competency: Matter of M-A-M- requires an IJ-ordered competency evaluation upon indicia of incompetency, and ongoing monitoring. Joseph’s evaluation found her competent, she was reminded of rights, and no deprivation of liberty without due process occurred.
- Motion to Reopen: 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3) bars evidence that predates the final order, and post-order evidence must make out at least a prima facie case. Joseph’s new evidence fell short on nexus and severity.

Impact

This decision reinforces several important principles in U.S. immigration law:

Exhaustion as Claim-Processing: Practitioners must present all grounds—including race-based claims—with specificity before the BIA or risk forfeiture.
Substantial Evidence Standard: Courts will defer to IJ/BIA findings unless no reasonable factfinder could have reached the same conclusion.
Mental Competency Safeguards: IJs must order competency evaluations when there are signs of mental incapacity and reassess competency over time.
Motion to Reopen Discipline: Parties should gather and present evidence as early as possible; new evidence that predates the removal order is not “new.”

Future petitioners and their counsel will need to ensure thorough administrative presentation of all claims and be mindful of procedural bars.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Exhaustion (INA § 242(d)(1)): A requirement that says you must raise your full argument at all administrative levels first (IJ, then BIA) before asking a court to review it. It’s a procedural rule you can waive or forfeit if not used.
Substantial Evidence Standard: A deferential review by which a court affirms an agency decision unless the record compels a different result—meaning reasonable minds could not disagree with the agency.
Particular Social Group (PSG): A group of people in a country who share a characteristic that they cannot change or should not be required to change (e.g., “Bahamian women,” “mentally ill persons”). A requested group must be recognized and the petitioner must show nexus.
Cat Relief vs. Withholding of Removal: Withholding (INA): You must show your life or freedom would be threatened “on account of” a protected ground. CAT: A separate treaty-based protection requiring proof of likelihood of “torture” by or with the acquiescence of state actors, irrespective of motive.
Motion to Reopen: A request to reconsider a final order based on new facts or changed country conditions. New evidence must truly be “new” and material to change the outcome.
Due Process in Removal Proceedings: Under the Fifth Amendment, noncitizens must receive fair notice and a chance to be heard. Due process violations require showing a liberty deprivation and “substantial prejudice” (i.e., a different outcome would have occurred).

Conclusion

Joseph v. U.S. Attorney General underscores the Eleventh Circuit’s rigorous adherence to procedural and substantive standards in immigration litigation:

Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a claim-processing rule—failure to present a claim with sufficient detail at the BIA forfeits judicial review.
The substantial evidence standard demands deference to the IJ and BIA on findings of fact and nexus.
Matter of M-A-M- competency safeguards remain a crucial procedural protection for respondents with mental-health issues.
Motions to reopen must rest on truly new, material evidence that could change the result.

The decision offers clarity for practitioners and enhances predictability in how the Eleventh Circuit reviews withholding, CAT, due process, and reopening issues in removal proceedings.