
    Leonaro VASO, also known as Leonard Vaso; Kela Vaso; Katerina Vaso, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60363.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided May 30, 2006.
    Lourdes B. Martinez-Esquivel, Law Offices of Lourdes Martinez-Esquivel, Coral Gables, FL, for Petitioners.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, John Clifford Cunningham, Luis Enrique Perez, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Alberto R Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Leonaro Vaso, Kela Vaso, and Katerina Vaso, natives and citizens of Albania, petition for review of the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). They argue that the IJ erroneously determined that Leonard Vaso’s asylum application was untimely, and they contend that he was entitled to withholding of removal and relief under the CAT because he has been persecuted in Albania on account of his political opinion.

Because the BIA relied on the IJ’s determination that the asylum application was untimely, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of asylum. Cf. Zhu v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 521, 528 (5th Cir.2004)(in which the BIA did not indicate whether it was affirming the timeliness decision, the merits decision, or both). The record reveals that Leonard Vaso was subject to harassment that does not rise to the level of persecution. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir.2004). The BIA’s determination affirming the denial of withholding of removal and relief under the CAT is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir.2002); Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994).

The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     