United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4026

___________

Fadhel Chaloup Hassan, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review from the

v. * Board of Immigration Appeals.

*

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: February 16, 2007

Filed: February 26, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Fadhel Chaloup Hassan (Hassan), a native of Iraq, petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed Hassan’s appeal

of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 

The IJ determined that Hassan failed to file a timely asylum application and did

not present an extraordinary circumstance that would allow for late filing of the

application. Despite this determination, the IJ discussed the merits of Hassan’s
-2-

application, finding that he had not suffered past persecution and did not have a wellfounded fear of future persecution. 

The REAL ID Act of 2005, codified in relevant part at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)

and (D), permits judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2) where there is a claim

of a constitutional violation or question of law. Absent such a claim, however, we

lack jurisdiction to review the determination that an asylum application was barred as

untimely filed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (“[n]o court shall have jurisdiction to

review any determination of the Attorney General under [8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)]”);

Ibarra-Terrazas v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 1046, 1048 (8th Cir. 2006) (finding jurisdiction

to review questions of law); Ming Ming Wijono v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868, 871 (8th

Cir. 2006) (recognizing that jurisdiction does exist to address constitutional claims);

Tolego v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 763, 766 (8th Cir. 2006) (“this court lacks jurisdiction

to review either the IJ’s determination that the asylum application was not timely filed

or the Attorney General’s decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint of changed

circumstances”). Here, Hassan contends that the IJ erred in determining that he had

not established changed circumstances because Hassan mistakenly believed that he

had a longer employment visa than had been granted. Such is a discretionary

decision, and we lack jurisdiction to review that decision. 

With respect to Hassan’s request for withholding of removal and CAT relief,

Hassan failed to present evidence of past persecution and no reasonable factfinder

would be bound to find that Hassan had a well-founded fear of future persecution or

that Hassan would be more likely than not intentionally subjected to torture. Hassan

argues on appeal that in 1994 he was threatened with death if he refused to join the

Ba’ath Party, however the IJ found that the only credible threat Hassan received was

loss of his lecturing job at the University. A thorough review of Hassan’s testimony

before the IJ supports this finding, and there is no substantial evidence in the record

that would support a reasonable fear of future persecution or torture. See Ming Ming

Wijono, 439 F.3d at 872, 874 (8th Cir. 2006) (applicant seeking withholding of
-3-

removal had burden to show clear probability of persecution; to overcome substantialevidence review standard, applicant must show that no reasonable factfinder could fail

to find requisite probability of persecution; independent analysis of CAT claim is not

required if it was based upon same factual basis as withholding-of-removal claim). 

Hassan’s remaining claim, that the IJ failed to consider whether it was

impractical or inadvisable to remove Hassan due to the lack of a central functioning

government, was not raised before the BIA and is unreviewable by this court. See 8

U.S.C. § 1252(d) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if the alien has

exhausted all administrative remedies . . . .”); Frango v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 726, 728

(8th Cir. 2006) (§ 1252(d)(1) requires that alien not only pursue all stages of

administrative review, but also raise all issues before the agency). 

The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________