Opinion ID: 2977232
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timeliness of Asylum Claim

Text: The legal standards governing applications for asylum are laid out in 8 U.S.C. § 1158. An alien cannot apply for asylum under this section “unless the alien demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.”4 § 1158(a)(2)(B). This statute states that “[n]o court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General” that a given individual’s application for asylum is untimely. § 1158(a)(3). After the passage of the REAL ID Act in 2005, 4 Section 1158(a)(2)(D) provides that an individual can apply for asylum after this one-year period if the individual can show changed or extraordinary circumstances. Mardusha contends that she sufficiently proved that her date of entry was less than a year before she filed for asylum, and she does not argue that either of the exceptions in § 1158(a)(2)(D) apply to her case. 7 we concluded that § 1158(a)(3) “bar[s] our review of asylum applications denied for untimeliness only when the appeal seeks review of the discretionary or factual questions, but not when the appeal seeks review of constitutional claims or matters of statutory interpretation.” Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 748 (6th Cir. 2006); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Mardusha’s brief seems to argue that the IJ’s timeliness determination violated Mardusha’s due-process rights because the IJ was prejudiced. Mardusha Br. at 2, 7-9. However, Mardusha failed to raise before the BIA the argument that the IJ was prejudiced. J.A. at 11-12 (Mardusha BIA Br. at 4-5). Therefore, any constitutional arguments that Mardusha makes are unexhausted, and we cannot consider them. Ramani v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 554, 560 (6th Cir. 2004) (“[W]e hold that only claims properly presented to the BIA and considered on their merits can be reviewed by this court in an immigration appeal.”). Additionally, Mardusha’s brief contains only limited argument on this point and does not present any evidence of the alleged prejudice. To the extent that this argument seeks review of factual questions, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. Because Mardusha has waived and failed to support any constitutional claim, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the IJ’s and the BIA’s factual determination that Mardusha’s petition for asylum was untimely.