on his prior aggravated felony conviction, we only retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D). As previously discussed, we lack jurisdiction to review unexhausted arguments raised for the first time in a petition for review. However, some constitutional claims do not require exhaustion because the agency does not have the authority to adjudicate those claims. See Sundar v. INS, 328 F.3d 1320, 1325 (11th Cir.2003). Nevertheless, where the agency can provide a remedy to the constitutional ■ claim, “the ‘exhaustion requirement applies with full force.” Id. Thus, “procedural due process claims, as well as procedural errors argued in due process terms, must be raised before” the agency. Amaya-Artunduaga, 463 F.3d at 1251 (<HOLDING>). Assuming we have jurisdiction, “[w]e review
holding that the petitioners due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing because the immigration judge was biased was the kind of procedural error that required exhaustion holding that there is no due process violation where the ijs finding was not arbitrary and the alien was not denied a full and fair opportunity to present his claims holding that petitioner did not exhaust his due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing by arguing that due process was violated on the ground that the ij admitted uncertified evidence holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court holding that a petitioner must show prejudice in order to prevail on a claim that he or she was denied a full and fair hearing in violation of due process