Simonovskiy

MEMORANDUM **

Maksim Simonovskiy seeks review of an order of removal. We dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Simonovskiy argues that the removal proceedings below were procedurally flawed because the immigration judge (IJ) did not have authority to conduct removal proceedings, given that there had been no prior termination of his refugee status under section 207(c)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (c)(4), and given that there had been no prior “inspection and examination” proceeding under section 209(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1159 (a). As to section 207(c)(4), this argument was not raised below. As to section 209(a), not only was this argument not made below, but, at the behest of the IJ, counsel for Simonovskiy stated on the record that he was not making such an objection.

Simonovskiy also argues that the IJ employed an incorrect legal standard in denying his request for a “refugee waiver” under section 209(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1159 (c). He argues that the IJ should not have used the standard set forth in Matter of Marin, 16 I. & N. Dec. 581 (BIA 1978). Again, he did not raise this issue below. The immigration judge announced…