Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar GUERLANCIE FELIX v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-08-10 The eleventh-circuit dismissed in part and denied in part Guerlancie Felix’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order affirming the denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court held that Felix failed to exhaust administrative remedies regarding two specific claims: first, her argument that the immigration judge erred by failing to shift the burden of proof to the government after finding past persecution on account of political opinion; and second, her claim that the BIA erred in not considering her eligibility for humanitarian asylum. The court applied the exhaustion requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), ruling that unadorned, conclusory statements or passing references do not satisfy the requirement to raise the “core issue” and provide sufficient information for the BIA to review errors. Because Felix did not raise these specific arguments in her notice of appeal or briefing before the BIA, the court could not consider them. Regarding her challenge that the BIA failed to show reasoned consideration of the humanitarian asylum claim, the court denied this argument on the merits, applying a de novo standard of review. The court reasoned that the BIA is only required to provide reasoned consideration for claims actually raised by the petitioner; therefore, it cannot be faulted for failing to consider an unexhausted claim that was not properly before it. As a result, the petition is dismissed as to the exhaustion issues and denied as to the reasoned consideration issue. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.