Case Name: Oladiran Sunday ALAGBE, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-30
Citations: 144 F. App'x 570
Docket Number: No. 04-2296
Parties: Oladiran Sunday ALAGBE, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent.
Judges: Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 570–571

Head Matter:
Oladiran Sunday ALAGBE, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent.
No. 04-2296.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 26, 2005.
Decided: Sept. 30, 2005.
Kwao Amegashie, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner.
Scott Baniecke, Bruce Norum, Bloomington, MN, for Respondent.
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
. Alberto Gonzales has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Oladiran Sunday Alagbe, a citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed an Immigration Judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and voluntary departure.
We lack jurisdiction to review the determination that Mr. Alagbe's asylum application was untimely and that he did not show changed or extraordinary circumstances justifying his untimely application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 988-89 (8th Cir.2004). After careful review of the record, we conclude that Mr. Alagbe was not entitled to withholding of removal, because he failed to demonstrate a clear probability that he would be persecuted on one of the enumerated grounds if removed to Nigeria. See Tawm v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir.2004) (clear-probability standard).
Accordingly, we deny the petition.
. Mr. Alagbe does not challenge the denial of CAT relief or voluntary departure. See Falaja v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 889, 897 (8th Cir.2005); Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir.2004).