Michel

Petitioner Fouad Pierre Michel (Michel) challenges the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) decision upholding the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) final order of removal finding Michel inadmissible due to multiple misrepresentations in his asylum application and during his removal proceedings.

1. “[Fjailure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.” Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir.2004) (citation and alteration omitted). An issue is deemed raised before the BIA only if addressed in an alien’s merits brief to the BIA. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc) (per curiam). Michel’s brief to the BIA did not discuss the materiality requirement, and therefore this argument was not exhausted. Contrary to counsel’s assertions, the BIA’s conclusory statement of materiality in the BIA’s opinion does not establish that the BIA sufficiently considered the issue. Cf. Socop-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 272 F.3d 1176, 1186 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (“Whether or not the decision on the merits was technically before the BIA, the BIA addressed it…