985, A215-685-986 After Respondent moved (unopposed) to stay oral argument because… v. TODD W. BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General of the United States,†

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 3, 2025*
Decided May 18, 2026
Before
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1189
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals.
Nos. A215-685-985, A215-685-986
* After Respondent moved (unopposed) to stay oral argument because of the
government lapse of appropriations, we granted the motion and concluded that oral
argument was unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record.
See F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2).
† Todd W. Blanche replaced Pamela J. Bondi as Acting Attorney General and is
substituted as the respondent. See FED. R. APP. P. 43(c)(2).
ERDENESAIKHAN BATCHULUUN,
et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
TODD W. BLANCHE,
Acting Attorney General of the United
States,†
Respondent.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 5 --

No. 25-1189 Page 2
O R D E R
Erdenesaikhan Batchuluun, a native of Mongolia, entered the United States in
2017 on a B-2 visitor visa. After overstaying his visa, he applied for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
2022, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Batchuluun all relief, finding that he had
failed to testify credibly or adequately corroborate his claim. Batchuluun appealed, and
the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “Board”) affirmed, finding that Batchuluun had
“not meaningfully challenged” the IJ’s dispositive credibility determination and had
therefore waived it. Batchuluun now petitions for our review. Because we agree that
Batchuluun failed to administratively exhaust his challenge to the IJ’s credibility
finding, we affirm.
I
Batchuluun and his wife traveled from Mongolia to Seattle, Washington in
September 2017 on United States B-2 visitor visas, which authorized them to stay in the
country until March 16, 2018. After overstaying their visas, Batchuluun and his wife
filed a Form I-589 asylum application with United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services in June 2018. Batchuluun’s wife was a derivative applicant on Batchuluun’s
application, meaning she could obtain relief only if Batchuluun’s application was
granted. See Miljkovic v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 580, 581 (7th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we only
review the circumstances upon which Batchuluun, the primary asylum seeker, bases his
claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21.
On August 28, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) initiated
removal proceedings and issued a notice to appear, charging Batchuluun with
removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) for “remain[ing] in the United States for a
time longer than permitted.” At a hearing before an IJ on September 26, 2018,
Batchuluun conceded the charge of removability but declined to designate a country of
removal. On January 14, 2022, Batchuluun filed an amended Form I-589 application
seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT.
Batchuluun testified before the IJ at a hearing on the merits of his application on
January 31, 2022. He explained that he was from the capital of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar,
where he obtained his degree in business administration and worked for the

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 25-1189 Page 3
government as an inspection specialist. In that role, Batchuluun evaluated permit
applications for the use of government-owned land. He reported to Purevdavaa
Davaakhuu, the governor of the district of Bayanzurkh. Batchuluun explained how
Purevdavaa orchestrated a scheme of soliciting bribes from permit applicants in
exchange for the issuance of under-the-table permits. Batchuluun detailed Purevdavaa’s
power and connections in Mongolia, including his ties to law enforcement.
Batchuluun also recounted several incidents involving Purevdavaa that led him
to leave the country. First, in September 2013, Batchuluun visited an elderly man with
Purevdavaa and Purevdavaa’s deputy to demand that the man relinquish his land to
the government. When the man refused, Purevdavaa struck the man, causing him to fall
and hit his head against a bed post, dying on the spot. Purevdavaa threatened to charge
Batchuluun with the murder, or to kill Batchuluun, if Batchuluun told anyone or
reported it to the police.
The second incident came a few months later in November 2013, after
Batchuluun had decided to quit his job. While at home, two individuals forcibly took
Batchuluun to a remote area where Purevdavaa was waiting. After beating him up, the
men threatened to kill Batchuluun or charge him with the elderly man’s murder unless
he remained employed with Purevdavaa.
Third, in February 2014, Batchuluun reported Purevdavaa to the anti-corruption
agency after Purevdavaa asked him to deposit donations meant for the government into
Purevdavaa’s personal account. While at the agency, the authorities arrested and
incarcerated Batchuluun for the murder of the elderly man. Batchuluun assumed his
arrest resulted from Purevdavaa’s connections at the agency and was retaliation for his
report. While in jail, three of Batchuluun’s cellmates harassed and physically attacked
him, accusing him of killing the elderly man. Batchuluun received treatment for these
injuries at a hospital. After two months, Purevdavaa got Batchuluun released on the
condition that he continue working for him. Batchuluun did so until he left for the
Unted States in 2017, all the while continuing to receive death threats from Purevdavaa.
Batchuluun could not escape earlier from Mongolia because he was afraid of
Purevdavaa and was experiencing financial issues.
The IJ found that Batchuluun failed to testify credibly or adequately corroborate
his claim and denied all relief. The judge described about a dozen inconsistencies
within Batchuluun’s testimony and declarations regarding each of the three incidents
above. For example, in Batchuluun’s original declaration, he stated that Purevdavaa

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 25-1189 Page 4
“appointed” his deputy and Batchuluun to meet with the elderly man, that it was the
deputy who struck the man, and that the man died of a stroke. He testified and
submitted in a subsequent declaration that it was Purevdavaa who had killed the man
and positioned the man’s body to make it look as though he’d had a stroke. Also, while
Batchuluun’s original declaration stated that Purevdavaa’s deputy forcibly took him
from his home in November 2013, he testified later that it was two unknown men who
took him. Further, Batchuluun testified that he was arrested at the anti-corruption
agency while reporting Purevdavaa’s illegal activities. But in his original declaration, he
stated that he was “headed out for lunch break” when the police approached him and
took him to jail. The judge determined that based on these inconsistences, Batchuluun
was not credible. She also found Batchuluun failed to rehabilitate his credibility because
he had not sufficiently corroborated his testimony with credible evidence. Last, the IJ
determined that even if Batchuluun were credible, his claims would fail on the merits.
Batchuluun appealed, and the Board affirmed, finding Batchuluun had “not
meaningfully challenged” the credibility determination and had therefore waived it.
Because the credibility finding was dispositive of Batchuluun’s applications for relief
and protection from removal, the Board did not address the merits. Batchuluun
petitions for our review.
II
Batchuluun seeks to challenge the IJ’s credibility determination, but we agree
with the government that he failed to administratively exhaust this challenge,
precluding our review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Muñoz-Rivera v. Garland, 81 F.4th 681, 687
(7th Cir. 2023) (citing Issaq v. Holder, 617 F.3d 962, 968 (7th Cir. 2010) (“A court may
review a final order of removal only if the applicant first exhausts all administrative
remedies available [to petitioner] as of right . . . this includes the obligation to first
present to the Board any arguments that lie within its power to address.”) (quotations
omitted)). To exhaust a claim, the petitioner must argue it “specifically and with enough
detail to put the Board on notice that [he] is trying to challenge the immigration judge’s
decision based on that argument.” Muñoz-Rivera, 81 F.4th at 687–88. The requirement is
not a jurisdictional rule, but rather a “case-processing rule that limits arguments
available” to petitioners before this court “when those arguments have not been raised
properly at the agency level.” Issaq, 617 F.3d at 968.
In his appeal to the Board, Batchuluun did not challenge the IJ’s lengthy adverse
credibility finding “specifically” or with any detail. The only language touching on

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 25-1189 Page 5
credibility at all is the final sentence of a section concerning membership in a particular
social group, which states:
Taking all of these circumstances into account, the Board of
Immigration Appeals should find that the Immigration Judge clearly
erred as Respondent’s testimony was sufficiently detailed and his
credibility should not have been called into question due to the minor
inconsistencies noted by the Immigration Judge.
Aside from being buried within a section of Batchuluun’s brief wholly unrelated to
the credibility finding, the language addresses none of the contradictions found by the IJ
between and within Batchuluun’s declarations and testimony regarding the elderly
man’s death, the November 2013 attack, or his February 2014 incarceration. See Muñoz-
Rivera, 81 F.4th at 688 (“Because Muñoz’s arguments failed to engage substantively with
most of the immigration judge’s factual findings regarding credibility, the Board held
that she ‘waived any challenge’ to those findings. We agree.”). Because Batchuluun failed
to “engage substantively” with the credibility finding, he did not properly exhaust his
remedies on this issue and has waived this argument for relief. Id. The IJ also found that
he failed to rehabilitate his credibility with credible corroborating evidence. But nowhere
in Batchuluun’s Board appeal did he challenge that separate finding, so we extend waiver
to this issue as well.
In light of the waiver, we accept the finding that Batchuluun was not credible.
Because such an adverse credibility finding “doom[s] the applicant’s claimed eligibility,”
we do not reach Batchuluun’s separate challenge to the IJ’s alternative findings on the
merits. Dai v. Garland, 24 F.4th 628, 635 (7th Cir. 2022). As they have not met the lower
burden for asylum, Batchuluun and his wife cannot meet the higher burdens required for
withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. Alvarenga-Flores v. Sessions, 901
F.3d 922, 926 (7th Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, we DENY Batchuluun’s petition for review.

-- 5 of 5 --