22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T51c,MEMORANDUM Nora Hilda Martinez-Linares and her son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factu al findings. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary circumstances excused the untimely filing of Martinez-Linares’ asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4 (a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). We therefore uphold the agency’s denial of her asylum claim. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Martinez-Linares failed to demonstrate a clear probability that her “life or freedom would be threatened” upon her return to El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16 (b); Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888-89 (9th Cir.2001). We therefore uphold the agency’s denial of withholding of removal. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T54e,

MEMORANDUM

Nora Hilda Martinez-Linares and her son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factu al findings. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary circumstances excused the untimely filing of Martinez-Linares’ asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4 (a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). We therefore uphold the agency’s denial of her asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Martinez-Linares failed to demonstrate a clear probability that her “life or freedom would be threatened” upon her return to El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16 (b); Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888-89 (9th Cir.2001). We therefore uphold the agency’s denial of withholding of removal.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.