United States Court of Appeals
         For the Eighth Circuit
     ___________________________

             No. 13-1870
     ___________________________

           Angel Alex Cun-Luc

         lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

                       v.

            Eric H. Holder, Jr.

        lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
     ___________________________

             No. 13-2788
     ___________________________

           Angel Alex Cun-Luc

         lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

                       v.

            Eric H. Holder, Jr.

        lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
                ____________

   Petition for Review of an Order of the
       Board of Immigration Appeals
               ____________

         Submitted: April 17, 2014
           Filed: June 13, 2014
              [Unpublished]
              ____________
Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Guatemalan citizen Angel Alex Cun-Luc petitions for review of two orders of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed an immigration judge’s
(“IJ’s”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”) and denied Cun-Luc’s motion to reopen the proceedings.
The IJ and BIA determined that Cun-Luc’s asylum application was untimely and that
no extraordinary circumstances excused his untimely filing. We lack jurisdiction to
review this determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (providing that no court shall
have jurisdiction to review any determination regarding the untimeliness of an asylum
application); Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975, 989 (8th Cir. 2004) (holding that we
lack jurisdiction to consider a challenge to an IJ’s timeliness determination and that
a petition for review of the Attorney General’s denial of asylum based on
untimeliness must be rejected). Cun-Luc’s brief focused exclusively on the merits of
his asylum claim, which the IJ and BIA alternatively rejected. However, because the
untimeliness of his asylum application is an independent and adequate basis to deny
it, we need not reach the merits of his asylum claim. Accordingly, we dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction Cun-Luc’s petition as to his asylum claim.1
                        ______________________________




      1
       The BIA orders of which Cun-Luc seeks review also denied his application
for withholding of removal, his request for CAT relief, and his motion to reopen the
proceedings. However, Cun-Luc’s brief did not contain any meaningful argument on
these issues. We therefore deem them waived and decline to address them. See
Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004).
                                         -2-
