
    Sona CHILIYAN; Yurik Harutyunyan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74750.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 24, 2010.
    Sona Chiliyan, North Hollywood, CA, pro se.
    Yurik Harutyunyan, North Hollywood, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Kristin A. Cabral, Esquire, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Mark Lenard Gross, Esquire, Deputy Chief Counsel, Victor D. Quintanilla, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sona Chiliyan, and her son Yurik Haru-tyunyan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their 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 for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition.

The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary circumstances excused the untimely filing of petitioners’ 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).

Because the record is unclear as to why Chiliyan was targeted by various groups, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, even if credible, petitioners failed to show that they were or would be persecuted in Armenia on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, their withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they would be tortured if they return to Armenia. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).

The record is inadequate to grant relief on the petition for review. The proper procedure for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is to file a motion to reopen before the BIA so that the record may be augmented.

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