¶1 Artem Naumovich Vinokur, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Vinokur challenges the immigration judge’s finding that his asylum application was untimely and that he failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances or extraordinary circumstances excusing the late filing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4) (2003). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review this claim pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). See Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533, 544 (6th Cir.2003); Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 185-86 (3d Cir.2003); Tsevegmid v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir.2003); Fahim v. United States Attorney Gen., 278 F.3d 1216, 1217-18 (11th Cir.2002); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. *914 2001); Ismailov v. Reno, 263 F.3d 851, 854-55 (8th Cir.2001). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of Vinokur’s asylum claim. Accordingly, we deny Vinokur’s petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
¶2 PETITION DENIED