Case Name: Charles Mwangi MUGUCHIA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-25
Citations: 498 F. App'x 671
Docket Number: No. 12-2188
Parties: Charles Mwangi MUGUCHIA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 498
Pages: 671–671

Head Matter:
Charles Mwangi MUGUCHIA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 12-2188.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 24, 2013.
Filed: Feb. 25, 2013.
John Bradley Pace, Pace Law Firm, LLC, Mission, KS, for Petitioner.
Jeffrey Bernstein, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Richard M. Evans, Justin Robert Markel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kenyan citizen Charles Mwangi Muguc-hia petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld an immigration judge's decision denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Muguchia was denied asylum based on the untimeliness of his application, and was denied withholding of removal and CAT relief based on the merits of his requests. After careful review, we find no basis for reversal. First, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's determinations regarding the untimeliness of Muguchia's asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Second, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the denials of withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Wijono v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868, 872, 874 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review); see also Uli v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 950, 956-57 (8th Cir.2008) (State Department reports can support factual finding of changed conditions to rebut presumption of future persecution). Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.