
    Leonard BREGU, also known as Gentian Drenova, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60697.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Jan. 31, 2006.
    Leonard Bregu, Chicago, IL, pro se.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Luis Garcia, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Director’s Office, El Paso, TX, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Robbin K. Blaya, John S. Hogan, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) which adopted and affirmed a decision by the immigration judge (“IJ”) terminating a previous grant of asylum to Petitioner. For the following reasons, we deny the petition.

1. The IJ’s finding that the grant of asylum to Mr. Drenova should be terminated is supported by substantial evidence. The record reflects that Mr. Drenova lied under oath when he stated on his asylum application that he had never used any aliases other than the name under which he applied. This concealment was material because investigation of Mr. Drenova’s alias would have disclosed other facts relevant to his qualifications, particularly the fact that he entered the United States more than one year prior to his application for asylum, and thus the concealment naturally tended to influence the agency’s decision. Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 770, 772, 108 S.Ct. 1537, 1547, 99 L.Ed.2d 839 (1988).

2. We do not have jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Mr. Drenova is time-barred from presenting a new application for asylum. INA § 208(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). The qualification of § 208(a)(3)’s limitation on judicial review imposed by the recently enacted INA § 242(a)(2)(D) (8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)) is not applicable in this case.

3. Mr. Drenova’s claim that the IJ erred by not permitting him to file an application for withholding of removal is contradicted by the record. The record reflects that the IJ expressly afforded Mr. Drenova an opportunity to pursue an application for withholding and that Mr. Drenova did not do so.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5 th Cm. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     