United States Court of Appeals
                          FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 08-3083
                                   ___________

Moin Khan,                             *
                                       *
             Petitioner,               *
                                       * Petition for Review of
       v.                              * an Order of the Board
                                       * of Immigration Appeals.
                    1
Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General *
of the United States,                  * [UNPUBLISHED]
                                       *
             Respondent.               *
                                  ___________

                             Submitted: January 15, 2010
                                 Filed: January 25, 2010
                                 ___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                        ___________

PER CURIAM.

     Pakistani citizen Moin Khan petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his December 2007 motion to reopen.2 After


      1
       Eric H. Holder, Jr., has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the
United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 43(c).
      2
       We lack jurisdiction to review the merits of the underlying removal order,
including Khan’s challenge to the immigration judge’s findings regarding the
timeliness of his asylum application. See Raffington v. INS, 

, 721, 724
careful review, we conclude the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion
based on Khan’s failure to establish--in the context of the alleged changed
circumstances--prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture. See Habchy v. Filip, 

, 912 (8th
Cir. 2009) (standard of review); Minwalla v. INS, 

, 834-35 (8th Cir.
1983) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion to reopen where alien’s allegations
did not establish prima facie case for substantive relief sought).

      Accordingly, we deny the petition.
                     ______________________________




(8th Cir. 2003) (court reviewing denial of motion to reopen does not have jurisdiction
to review underlying order); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (courts do not have
jurisdiction to review any determination with respect to timeliness of asylum
application).

                                         -2-