jurisdiction, in this case the statute clearly indicates that Congress intended to restrict judicial review. Section 1158(a)(3) states, “[n]o court shall have the jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2) [the provision providing that the one-year time limit may be waived if extraordinary circumstances are demonstrated].” Although there is a presumption favoring judicial review, the presumption may be overcome by specific statutory language precluding that review. Block v. Community Nutrition Inst, 467 U.S. 340, 349, 104 S.Ct. 2450, 81 L.Ed.2d 270 (1984). Two circuits have refused to review untimely asylum applications because section 1158(a)(3) contains such specific language. Hakeem v. I.N.S., No. 00-70525, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Ismailov v. Reno, 263 F.3d 851, 855 (8th
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 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 holding that section 1158a3 precludes judicial review of immigration judges determination that immigrants asylum application was untimely holding that section 1158a3 divests our court of jurisdiction to review a decision regarding whether an alien complied with the oneyear time limit or established extraordinary circumstances that would excuse his untimely filing holding that  1158a3 divests the court of jurisdiction to review decisions of whether an alien complied with the oneyear time limit or whether extraordinary circumstances were present to justify untimely filing of the asylum application citing mendoza v us atty gen 327 f3d 1283 1287 11th cir2003