Guadalupe DIAZ-VELASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent, 622 F. App'x 241

Petition dismissed in part; granted and remanded in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Guadalupe Diaz-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

On appeal, Diaz-Velasquez challenges the agency’s determination that he failed to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. We lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find that Diaz-Velasquez has not raised any claims that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir.2009). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of his asylum claims.

Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the petition for review. Diaz-Velasquez also contends that the agency erred in denying his request for withholding of removal. In analyzing his claims, the agency did not have the benefit of our recent decision in Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (4th Cir.2015), which addressed gang threats made to a family member. We therefore grant the petition for review in part and remand Diaz-Velasquez’s claim for withholding of removal for further proceedings in light of Hemandez-Avalos.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; RANTED AND REMANDED IN PART. Diaz-Velasquez failed to challenge the agency's denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n. 7 (4th Cir.2004).