USCA11 Case: 20-10923 Date Filed: 12/21/2020 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-10923
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A205-871-536
ANDRES ADAME-QUINTANA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(December 21, 2020)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-10923 Date Filed: 12/21/2020 Page: 2 of 5
Andres Adame Quintana seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
final order affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his application for
cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Mr. Adame-Quintana’s sole
argument is that the IJ and the BIA misapplied precedent when finding that his U.S.
citizen children would not suffer an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship”
due to his removal and their resulting relocation to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. §
1229b(b)(1)(D). Because Mr. Adame-Quintana did not exhaust his administrative
remedies, see Jeune v. U.S. Atty. Gen.,
810 F.3d 792, 800 (11th Cir. 2016), we lack
jurisdiction to review his claim. Accordingly, we dismiss his petition for review. 1
I
Mr. Adame-Quintana is a native and citizen of Mexico who has been living in
the United States without status since the 1990s. In 2014, the Department of
Homeland Security charged him with removability under
8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). During his removal proceeding, Mr. Adame-Quintana conceded
the charge of removability and subsequently filed an application for cancellation of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). The IJ denied Mr. Adame-Quintana’s
application, finding that his removal would not result in “exceptional and extremely
1
As we write for the parties, we set out only what is necessary to address Mr. Adame-Quintana’s
argument.
2
USCA11 Case: 20-10923 Date Filed: 12/21/2020 Page: 3 of 5
unusual hardship” on his children, who are U.S. citizens. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(D).
Mr. Adame-Quintana subsequently appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. In
relevant part, he argued that the IJ had erred by failing to consider, when analyzing
whether Mr. Adame-Quintana’s children would suffer exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship due to his removal, the impact of their relocation to Mexico. The
BIA dismissed Mr. Adame-Quintana’s appeal after determining that the IJ had
indeed considered the effects of relocation on his children. Mr. Adame-Quintana
now seeks our review of that final decision by the BIA.
II
In his petition for review, Mr. Adame-Quintana asserts—for the first time—
that in In Re Monreal-Aguinaga,
23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 65 (BIA 2001), the BIA held
that the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard is met if the hardship
resulting from removal is either exceptional or extremely unusual. According to
Mr. Adame-Quintana, the IJ and the BIA (by affirming the IJ’s decision) erred in
considering only the “exceptional” prong of the standard and failing to analyze the
“extremely unusual” prong.
We review de novo our subject-matter jurisdiction. See Jeune, 810 F.3d at
799. We lack jurisdiction to review a final order of removal if a petitioner has not
exhausted his administrative remedies available as of right. See 8 U.S.C.
3
USCA11 Case: 20-10923 Date Filed: 12/21/2020 Page: 4 of 5
§ 1252(d)(1). See also Jeune, 810 F.3d at 800. If a petitioner neglects to assert an
error before the BIA that he later attempts to raise before us, he has failed to exhaust
administrative remedies. See id. Though administrative exhaustion does not require
that a petitioner employ precise legal terminology, it does require that he provide
sufficient information to enable the BIA to review and correct the alleged error. See
id.
A review of the record confirms that Mr. Adame-Quintana has not exhausted
his administrative remedies on the sole point he raises in his petition. On appeal
before the BIA, Mr. Adame-Quintana did not assert that Monreal-Aguinaga had
established an either-or method of meeting the “exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship” standard. Further, he did not argue that the IJ had improperly applied
Monreal-Aguinaga or failed to consider the “extremely unusual” prong of the
standard. Nor did he request that the BIA overturn the IJ’s decision on that basis.
Instead, he argued that the IJ had erred by not finding that his children would suffer
unusual and extreme hardship due to their relocation to Mexico. Notwithstanding
the references in Mr. Adame-Quintana’s BIA brief to the purported unusual and
extreme nature of his children’s hardship, we cannot construe the use of that
terminology as providing the BIA with sufficient information to review and correct
the error that he now claims was committed.
4
USCA11 Case: 20-10923 Date Filed: 12/21/2020 Page: 5 of 5
Consequently, Mr. Adame-Quintana failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies, leaving us without jurisdiction to consider his petition for review.2
III
Because we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Adame-Quintana’s
claim, we dismiss his petition for review.
PETITION DISMISSED.
2
Given our decision, we need not address whether
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) also deprives us of
jurisdiction. See Patel v. U.S. Atty. Gen.,
971 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc); Martinez
v. U.S. Atty. Gen.,
446 F.3d 1219, 1221-22 (11th Cir. 2006).
5
