
    Jorge Alberto MARTINEZ-GALVAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-1822.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 19, 2016.
    Decided: April 28, 2016.
    Ronald D. Richey, Law Office of Ronald D. Richey, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Richard Zan-fardino, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    
      ■ Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jorge Martinez-Galvan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration. Judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Martinez-Galvan first challenges the agency’s determination that his asylum application is time-barred and that no exceptions applied to excuse the untimeliness. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2015). We lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find that Martinez-Galvan has not raised any claims that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir.2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review with respect to the asylum claim.

Martinez-Galvan next challenges the conclusion that he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Martinez-Galvan (B.I.A. June 25, 2015).

We therefore 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.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.  