Mohammad Yasin, Zehra Yasin, Omer M. Yasin, and Osman M. Yasin petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision to deny their application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and their claim for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Yasins argue that they are entitled to asylum and withholding of removal because they will be subjected to persecution and torture based on Mohammad Yasin’s political beliefs if they are returned to Pakistan.

We do not have jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that the Yasins’ asylum application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). The Yasins’ petition for review is thus DIS *836 MISSED as to the claims concerning asylum.

We will uphold the factual finding that an alien is not eligible for withholding of removal if that finding is supported by substantial evidence. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). Where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms without opinion and essentially adopts the I J’s decision, we review the I J’s decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).

To be eligible for withholding of removal under the INA, an alien must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution upon return. Id. at 306. To be eligible for withholding of removal under the CAT, an alien must demonstrate a likelihood of torture upon return. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002). The I J’s decision that the Yasins had failed to demonstrate clear probability of persecution or a likelihood of torture upon their return to Pakistan is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Yasins’ petition for review is DENIED as to their claims for withholding of removal under both the INA and the CAT.

The Yasins argue further that their case did not meet the BIA’s requirements for issuance of an affirmance without opinion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). Because the decision of the IJ was correct and does not raise any substantial factual or legal questions on appéal, the decision met the criteria for a summary affirmance pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(4).

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.