
    Nora Hilda MARTINEZ-LINARES, et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74220.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 22, 2009.
    Susan E. Hill, Esquire, Hill Piibe & Villegas, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Carmel Aileen Morgan, Esquire, Trial, Oil, Russell J.E. Verby, Esquire, Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nora Hilda Martinez-Linares and her son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary circumstances excused the untimely filing of Martinez-Linares’ asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). We therefore uphold the agency’s denial of her asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Martinez-Linares failed to demonstrate a clear probability that her “life or freedom would be threatened” upon her return to El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888-89 (9th Cir.2001). We therefore uphold the agency’s denial of withholding of removal.

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