
    Lino MASCARENHAS, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75779.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2007.
    
    Filed Oct. 1, 2007.
    Vinay R. Chari, Esq., Law Offices of Virender Kumar Goswami, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald É. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, lia C. Deiss, USSF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, Mark C. Walters, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lino Mascarenhas, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affir-mance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1196 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Mascarenhas has shown either changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam); see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review as to Mascarenhas’ asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of Mascarenhas’ withholding of removal claim based on the IJ’s finding of changed country conditions. See Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1230 (9th Cir.2002).

Finally substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Mascarenhas has not shown that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to India. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2006).

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