
    YU FENG LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-4238.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 20, 2013.
    Gary J. Yerman, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Senior Litigation Counsel; S. Nicole Nardone, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, RICHARD C. WESLEY, and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Yu Feng Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“China”), seeks review of a September 27, 2010 decision of the BIA dismissing her appeal from the August 13, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel. The BIA found that Lin’s new claim for asylum based on changed circumstances — specifically, the birth of her third child — was untimely because she failed to raise her new claim within a reasonable period of time after her third child was born. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision rejecting Lin’s application for asylum as untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Lin argues that the BIA erred by stating that she raised her new asylum claim for the first time at a hearing before the IJ on August 13, 2008, rather than two weeks earlier when she submitted a pre-hearing supplemental statement to the IJ on July 31, 2008. But that argument merely quarrels with the agency’s factual findings and does not raise a question of law over which we might exercise jurisdiction. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329-32 (2d Cir.2006); Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 323 (“[T]he agency does not commit an ‘error of law’ every time an item of evidence is not explicitly considered or is described "with imperfect accuracy....”). In any case, petitioner’s third child was born on December 30, 2006; she does not explain why she waited until July 31, 2008 to raise her changed circumstances, or why that nineteen-month period of delay was reasonable. See Matter of T.M.H. & S.W.C., 25 I. & N. Dec. 193 (B.I.A.2010).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED, and petitioner’s pending motion for a stay of removal is DENIED as moot. 
      
      . The BIA also independently rested its decision on the fact that Lin only showed changed personal circumstances, rather than changed circumstances in China. Respondent concedes that basis for the BIA’s decision was in error. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(i)(B).
     