Kaganovich

DISCUSSION

Petitioner contends that he cannot be removed because he entered the United States as a refugee and his refugee status was not terminated in the manner contemplated by 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(4). Petitioner’s entry into the United States as a ref- ugee is undisputed. In his application for asylum, and throughout his hearings, Petitioner stated that he originally entered the United States as a refugee. The government has never challenged that fact. Nor has the government ever con- tended that Petitioner’s refugee status was terminated pursu- ant to § 1157(c)(4). Instead, the government argues that this claim was not exhausted before the BIA and that, if the argu- ment was preserved, Petitioner can be removed notwithstand- ing his entry into the United States as a refugee. We address each of those arguments in turn.

A. Exhaustion of Claim

[1] We must first decide the preliminary question whether Petitioner exhausted his claim before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (providing that the court may review a final order of removal only if “the alien has exhausted all adminis- trative remedies available to the alien as of right”); Vargas v. 19370 KAGANOVICH v.…