UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1622

MEIQIN CHEN,

 Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Meiqin Chen, Petitioner Pro Se. Laura M.L. Maroldy, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Meiqin Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s 

Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the 

Immigration Judge’s order denying her applications for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture. 

Chen first challenges the finding below that no 

exception applied to excuse the untimely filing of her asylum 

application. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), the Attorney 

General’s decision regarding whether an alien has complied with 

the one-year time limit for filing an application for asylum, or

has established changed or extraordinary circumstances 

justifying waiver of that time limit, is not reviewable by any 

court. See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 

2009). Although 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) provides that nothing 

in “any other provision of this chapter . . . which limits or 

eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding 

review of constitutional claims or questions of law,” this court 

has held that the question of whether an asylum application is 

untimely or whether the changed or extraordinary circumstances 

exception applies “is a discretionary determination based on 

factual circumstances.” Gomis, 571 F.3d at 358. Accordingly, 

“absent a colorable constitutional claim or question of law, our
3

review of the issue is not authorized by § 1252(a)(2)(D).” Id. 

Because Chen fails to raise any such issues, we lack 

jurisdiction to review this finding. We therefore dismiss the 

petition for review of Chen’s asylum claim.

Next, Chen disputes the conclusion that she failed to 

qualify for the relief of withholding of removal. “Withholding 

of removal is available under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) if the alien 

shows that it is more likely than not that her life or freedom 

would be threatened in the country of removal because of her 

race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion.” Gomis, 571 F.3d at 359 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the record and 

conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s 

determination that Chen failed to demonstrate past persecution 

or a clear probability of future persecution. Because the 

evidence does not compel us to conclude to the contrary, we 

uphold the denial of relief. See Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 

265, 273 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 788 (2012). 

Finally, we uphold the finding below that Chen did not 

demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be 

tortured if removed to China so as to qualify for protection 

under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.16(c)(2).
4

We accordingly dismiss in part and deny in part the 

petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART; 

DENIED IN PART