Case Name: Javier Enrique Vega GUERRERO, 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: 2012-05-11
Citations: 477 F. App'x 408
Docket Number: No. 11-2935
Parties: Javier Enrique Vega GUERRERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 477
Pages: 408–409

Head Matter:
Javier Enrique Vega GUERRERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 11-2935.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2012.
Filed: May 11, 2012.
Javier Enrique Vega Guerrero, South Sioux City, NE, for Petitioner.
Stefanie N. Hennes, Karen Yolanda Drummond, U.S. Department of Justice, Richard M. Evans, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Honduran citizen Javier Enrique Vega Guerrero petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and affirmed an immigration judge's denial of asylum and withholding of removal.
We lack jurisdiction to review determinations regarding the untimeliness of Guerrero's asylum application or the absence of changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely filing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (no court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination regarding untimeliness of asylum application); Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 989 (8th Cir.2004) (court cannot review finding that alien did not show changed or extraordinary circumstances relating to delay in filing asylum application).
Having carefully reviewed the record before us, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal, see Wijono v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review), and that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Guerrero's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, see Habchy v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 858, 863-64 (8th Cir.2006) (no abuse of discretion in requiring substantial compliance with requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988)).
Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.