untimely: Abdi presented no evidence as to his entry date other than his own testimony, which was wholly unbelievable. Nothing that the BIA says is irreconcilable with this reasoned conclusion. That Abdi’s counsel may find the IJ’s or BIA’s opinions “confusing” does not make them legally deficient. Abdi’s challenge to the timeliness determination is nothing more than a claim that the IJ and BIA erred in concluding that his testimony regarding his entrance was not believable and that if the agency had believed him, it would have held that Abdi’s application was timely. “Because [Abdi] is arguing a factual error,” we “lack[ ] jurisdiction regarding the timeliness of [his] asylum application.” Diallo, 364 Fed.Appx. at 995; see also Bushati v. Mukasey, 310 Fed.Appx. 883, 885 (6th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we DISMISS Abdi’s petition for
holding that because the ij denied an asylum application as untimely we lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction to review the final order of removal as it pertained to the asylum claim holding that in light of an applicants omission of various relevant facts from his asylum application substantial evidence supported the ijs adverse credibility determination holding that an adverse credibility determination is sufficient to deny asylum holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agencys determination that an asylum application was not filed within one year after the last entry into the united states holding that jurisdiction was lacking to review an ijs determination that an asylum application was untimely when that determination was based on the fact that the petitioner offered no evidence other than his own testimony regarding his date of entry