Melissa Ayodele Olympio v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1027
MELISSA AYODELE OLYMPIO,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 25, 2008 Decided: December 11, 2008
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elizabeth L. Young, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IMMIGRATION
CLINIC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas,
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Alison Marie Igoe, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Ada E. Bosque, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Melissa Ayodele Olympio, a native and citizen of Togo,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial
of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
Olympio’s sole claim on appeal is that the immigration
judge erroneously applied the new provisions of the REAL ID Act in
assessing her credibility. Because Olympio failed to raise this
claim before the Board, we find that she has failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies and we therefore lack jurisdiction over the
petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006) (“A court
may review 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 the court lacks jurisdiction to consider an argument
that was not raised before the Board).
Accordingly, we dismiss 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 DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --