Nazeradl

MEMORANDUM **

Behrouz Nazeradl, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision to affirm the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order, which dismissed his application for asylum as untimely and denied his application for withholding of removal on the merits.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Nazeradl is ineligible for asylum because he failed to apply within one year of arriving in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(3); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir.2001). We review claims of due process violations in removal proceedings de novo. See Padilla v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 921, 923 (9th Cir.2003).

Nazeradl’s due process arguments lack merit. He first contends he was denied due process when the IJ did not allow him to present evidence that could allow for *213 him to file a late asylum application. This is factually incorrect because the IJ specifically instructed him to bring any evidence supporting his late application, and he responded by presenting evidence of changed circumstances. Next, he contends that he was denied due process because the IJ used the incorrect standard for asylum…