
    Grace Wangari WAHOME, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71499.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 18, 2012.
    Grace Wangari Wahome, Fife, WA, pro se.
    OIL, Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Esquire, Trial, DOJ — 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: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Grace Wangari Wahome, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her 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, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Wahome established changed or extraordinary circumstances that excuse her untimely filed asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, her asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal because Wahome did not establish that she was or would be harmed in Kenya on account of a protected ground. See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865-66 (9th Cir.2001) (no nexus between rape by guerillas and a protected ground).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Wa-home failed to establish it. is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to Kenya. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2), (3); Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (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.
     