MEMORANDUM **

Juan Nepomuceno Ramirez-Giraldo (“petitioner”), a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) final order of removal, denying his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. 1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. When the “BIA adopts the decision of the IJ, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA.” Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quotations omitted). We review the IJ’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892, 895 (9th Cir. 2003). We review the IJ’s changed and extraordinary circumstances determinations for substantial evidence. See Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657 (9th Cir. 2007)); see also Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2008).

Even if Ramirez-Giraldo could show deficient performance of counsel, he failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced by such performance because substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that RamirezGiraldo is ineligible for asylum and withholding due to his failure to show a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)(iii); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 699-700, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-47 (9th Cir. 2008).

In addition, the record does not compel a conclusion that Ramirez-Giraldo qualified for the changed country conditions exception to the one-year filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.