**UN PUBLISHED** 
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 un published 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Meiqin Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration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 belo w 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 es tablished 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 provis ion 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 c hanged 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, our3 review of the issue is not au thorized 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

qua lify for the relief of withholding of removal. “ Withholding of remova l is available under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) if the alien shows that it is more likely than not that h er life or freedom would be threatened in the cou ntry of removal because of her

race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular soci al group, or political opinion.” Gomis , 571 F.3d at 359 ( internal quotation marks omitted) . W e 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 prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not ai d the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART ; DENIED IN PART