1

Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not

participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of

the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1608

PAUL KRISMAN, a/k/a Michaele Gebrenguss Manna,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A95-240-678)

Submitted: January 20, 2006 Decided: September 12, 2006

Before LUTTIG,1

 MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David A. Garfield, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GARFIELD, Washington, D.C.,

for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.

Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Song E. Park, OFFICE OF

IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Paul Krisman, a/k/a Michaele Gebrenguss Manna (“Manna”),

a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) adopting and

affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

Against Torture.

In his petition for review, Manna contends that the Board

and immigration judge erred in denying asylum relief on the ground

that he failed to demonstrate that he filed his application within

one year of the date of his arrival in the United States. See 8

U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). As a general rule, we lack

jurisdiction to review a timeliness determination pursuant to 8

U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000), even in light of the recent passage of

the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231. See,

e.g., Chacon-Botero v. United States Att’y Gen., 427 F.3d 954,

956-57 (11th Cir. 2005) (“The timeliness of an asylum application

is not a constitutional claim or question of law covered by the

Real ID Act’s changes.”).

We retain a narrowly circumscribed jurisdiction, however,

to resolve actual constitutional challenges or questions of law

under the terms of the REAL ID Act. See Higuit v. Gonzales, 433

F.3d 417, 419 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we find that we

possess jurisdiction over Manna’s claim that the immigration judge
2

We have reviewed the immigration judge’s alternative holding

solely to ascertain whether Manna was prejudiced by the alleged due

process violation and find that Manna failed to “show that the

evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable

factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). Accordingly,

we conclude that Manna would not be entitled to a grant of asylum

in any event.

- 3 -

violated his rights under the Due Process Clause by raising the

timeliness issue at the end of the hearing without giving him an

adequate chance to respond. In order to prevail on a due process

claim, Manna must show that he was prejudiced by the alleged

violation. See Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320 (4th Cir. 2002);

Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 703 n.7 (4th Cir. 1990). A

reviewing court may find prejudice only “when the rights of [an]

alien have been transgressed in such a way as is likely to impact

the results of the proceeding.” Rusu, 296 F.3d at 320-21 (internal

quotations and citation omitted). Given that the immigration judge

would have denied Manna’s asylum claim in any event on the

alternative holding that he failed to demonstrate persecution by

the Ethiopian government based on any imputed political opinion,

his ethnicity, or his nationality,2 we find that Manna fails to

make the requisite showing of prejudice.

Manna also challenges the denial of his claim for

protection under the Convention Against Torture. Because he failed

to raise this claim before the Board, we have no jurisdiction to

consider it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000) (“A court may review
3

Manna only briefly mentions the denial of his request for

withholding of removal in the conclusion of his brief, without any

supporting argument. We therefore find that he has waived

appellate review of this claim. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,

178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).

- 4 -

a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all

administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.”);

Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding

that we lack jurisdiction to consider an argument that was not

raised before the Board); Farrokhi, 900 F.2d at 700 (holding that

“an alien who has failed to raise claims during an appeal to the

[Board] has waived his right to raise those claims before a federal

court on appeal of the [Board’s] decision”).3

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED