
    QUANYU JIN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75430.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 .
    Filed Dec. 10, 2007.
    Wei Vicky Wang, Esq., Law Offices of Wei Vicky Wang, Alhambx’a, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stacey I. Young, Esq., M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Quanyu Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

The immigration judge and the Board ruled alternatively that Jin’s asylum application was untimely and that he failed credibly to meet his burden of establishing the requirements for a grant of asylum. They also denied his applications for withholding of removal and relief under CAT.

In his opening brief, Jin contends that the immigration judge and the Board erred in concluding that he failed to prove that he entered the United States on September 1, 2003, and thus failed to establish that his asylum application was timely filed on February 6, 2004. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), we lack jurisdiction to review this factual finding. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     