
    Erick Franklin BAUTISTA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70003.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed July 1, 2015.
    Erick Franklin Bautista-Lopez, Los An-geles, CA, pro se.
    Puneet Cheema, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Erick Franklin Bautista-Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.Sd 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Bautista-Lopez established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per cu-riam). Thus, we deny the petition as to Bautista-Lopez’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Bautista-Lopez failed to establish the government of El Salvador was unwilling or unable to control the gangs. See Truong v. Holder, 613 F.3d 938, 941-942 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam). Thus, Bautista-Lopez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Bautista-Lopez failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

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