Henok

MEMORANDUM *

Husband and wife, Watupongoh Henok (Mr. Henok) and Yuliati Henok (Mrs. Henok), appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) per curiam decision affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We presume that the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and refer to them only as necessary in this disposition. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

1. The BIA possesses broad discretion to grant extensions of time within which to file briefs or to consider untimely filings. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3 (c)(1) (2003). Here, the BIA was within its discretion to deny the Henoks’ second request for ex *957 tension of time within which to file their briefs. The Henoks had the opportunity to present evidence of their entitlement to protection before the IJ. The BIA had also adequately warned the Henoks that it would not likely grant another extension, which placed them on notice. Moreover, the Henoks failed to file a late brief along with a motion for consideration of their late-filed brief. Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in…