In the

     United States Court of Appeals
                     for the Seventh Circuit
                        ____________________
No. 21-2844
GAYRATJON GOLIBJONIVICH GULOMJONOV,
                                                                   Petitioner,

                                      v.

PAMELA J. BONDI,
Attorney General of the United States,
                                                                  Respondent.
                        ____________________

                   Petition for Review of an Order of the
                      Board of Immigration Appeals.
                              No. A215-809-685
                        ____________________

    ARGUED JANUARY 12, 2023 — DECIDED MARCH 14, 2025
                ____________________

   Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and RIPPLE,
Circuit Judges.
    SYKES, Chief Judge. Gayratjon Gulomjonov, a native and
citizen of Uzbekistan, came to the United States as a visitor
in October 2016 and obtained a student visa extending his

 Pamela J. Bondi replaced Merrick B. Garland as Attorney General and

is substituted as the respondent. See FED. R. APP. P. 43(c)(2).
2                                                 No. 21-2844

stay to January 2019. He overstayed that authorization and
in November 2019 was placed in removal proceedings.
Conceding removability, he requested asylum, withholding
of removal, or protection under the Convention Against
Torture based on his conversion to Catholicism during his
stay in this country. He claimed that he would suffer reli-
gious persecution if returned to Uzbekistan, a predominant-
ly Muslim country.
    Asylum applications must be filed within one year of ar-
rival in the United States, see 

(a)(2)(B), so
Gulomjonov’s claim was untimely by more than two years.
He invoked the exception for changed circumstances, 

§ 1158(a)(2)(D), but a regulation requires applicants to file
within a reasonable time of the change in circumstances, 

(a)(4)(ii). Based on Gulomjonov’s testimony
about the timing of his religious conversion, an immigration
judge found that his change in circumstances occurred no
later than April 2019. But he did not seek asylum until ten
months later; the judge found that he did not apply within a
reasonable time and denied the claim as untimely. The
remaining claims were denied on the merits. The Board of
Immigration Appeals upheld the decision across the board,
and Gulomjonov petitioned for our review.
    He raises two challenges to the denial of his asylum
claim on untimeliness grounds: (1) the “reasonable time”
regulation is invalid; and (2) even if the regulation is valid,
the immigration judge was mistaken about the date of his
religious conversion. He also argues that the agency miscon-
strued the evidence about the treatment of Christians in
Uzbekistan in denying his other claims.
No. 21-2844                                                 3

    We dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. Our
jurisdiction to review the agency’s untimeliness ruling is
limited to constitutional claims or questions of law. See 

(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D). Gulomjonov’s challenge
to the validity of the regulation is a question of law, but it
fails on the merits; his backup argument about the date of
his change in circumstances is an unreviewable factual
claim. His challenge to the denial of his remaining claims is
perfunctory and insufficient to disturb the agency’s decision.
                       I. Background
    Gulomjonov was born in Uzbekistan, a predominantly
Muslim country, and grew up in a Muslim family. He came
to the United States in October 2016 at the age of 18 as a
nonimmigrant visitor. In April 2017 he obtained an F-1
student visa authorizing him to remain here for educational
purposes until January 2019.
    According to Gulomjonov’s asylum application and tes-
timony at his removal hearing, he became interested in
Catholicism soon after arriving in this country. Within weeks
of his arrival, a family friend took him to church. In May
2017 he visited Daler Khamidov, another close family friend
from Uzbekistan; while riding in Khamidov’s car, he noticed
a Bible and asked his friend about it. Khamidov explained
that he had converted to Catholicism, but he asked
Gulomjonov not to tell anyone. Still, Khamidov answered
Gulomjonov’s questions about the religion, and their conver-
sation fueled Gulomjonov’s interest in learning more about
the Catholic faith.
    By late 2018, Gulomjonov’s interest in Catholicism had
intensified. Following his arrest in early November for an
4                                                            No. 21-2844

altercation with two women, he turned to Catholicism for
solace and mercy.1 At that point he decided to become a
Catholic, and under Khamidov’s guidance, he began reading
the Bible and books about the faith. By early March 2019 he
was regularly attending church. According to his application
and testimony, his belief was strong by this time and he
considered himself a Catholic, but he was afraid to tell his
father and had not yet told his roommates and coworkers,
who were Uzbeki Muslims.
   At a work meeting in April 2019, Gulomjonov’s boss
asked him why his availability for weekend work had
changed. Gulomjonov explained that he had converted to
Catholicism. Around the same time, he also told his cowork-
ers and roommates that he had become a Catholic. But he
asked them not to tell his father.
    Gulomjonov’s student visa expired three months earlier,
in January 2019. On November 24, 2019, he was detained by
immigration authorities.2 While in detention he spoke with a
priest, who encouraged him to tell his family about his
conversion. In December 2019 Gulomjonov told his father
that he had converted to Catholicism.




1 The details of Gulomjonov’s arrest and criminal history—and their

effect, if any, on his eligibility for immigration benefits—are not relevant
to the issues presented here.
2 According to the record, Gulomjonov was married to a United States

citizen on November 18, 2019, a few days before he was detained. His
relationship with his wife apparently became strained after his deten-
tion. The status of his marriage is unclear, but it has no bearing on the
issues raised here.
No. 21-2844                                                          5

   Removal proceedings followed. In February 2020
Gulomjonov conceded removability and applied for asylum,
withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). He argued that he would be
persecuted in Uzbekistan because of his conversion to
Catholicism.3
    An immigration judge held a removal hearing and de-
nied all three requests for relief. The judge first held that
Gulomjonov’s asylum application was untimely because he
had not filed it within one year of his arrival in the United
States in October 2016, as required by § 1158(a)(2)(B). To
overcome the time bar, Gulomjonov invoked the changed-
circumstances exception, which provides that an asylum
application “may be considered” notwithstanding noncom-
pliance with the one-year filing deadline “if the alien
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General …
the existence of changed circumstances which materially
affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum.” § 1158(a)(2)(D).
Gulomjonov argued that his religious conversion was a
material change in circumstances.
    The judge assumed that Gulomjonov’s conversion quali-
fied as a material change but found that it did not excuse the
untimeliness of his application. A regulation provides that to
take advantage of the exception, asylum seekers must apply
“within a reasonable period given th[e] ‘changed circum-
stances.’” 

(a)(4)(ii). Based on Gulomjonov’s


3 As far as we can tell from the record, Gulomjonov was not baptized or

otherwise formally received into the Catholic Church. But the immigra-
tion agency credited the sincerity of his conversion, and we have no
reason to question that determination.
6                                                 No. 21-2844

asylum application and testimony at his removal hearing,
the judge determined that his conversion occurred no later
than April 2019. By that time, the judge reasoned, he was
attending church, reading the Bible, and considered himself
a Catholic; he had also told his boss, coworkers, and room-
mates of his conversion to Catholicism. Because he did not
apply for asylum until February 2020—ten months later—
the judge determined that he had not applied within a
reasonable time and denied the application as untimely.
    Gulomjonov argued that the judge should use a later
date to start the “reasonable time” clock: December 2019,
when he told his father about his conversion to Catholicism.
Measured from that date, his delay in filing was three rather
than ten months. The judge rejected his proposed alternative
date, noting that Gulomjonov’s decision to inform his father
about his conversion did not materially affect his eligibility
for asylum. As the judge viewed the record, the relevant
point of reference for the changed-circumstances exception
was the conversion itself—the basis for his asylum claim.
According to Gulomjonov’s own testimony, he considered
himself a Catholic by April 2019, long before he told his
father.
    The immigration judge turned next to Gulomjonov’s
claim for withholding of removal. The removal statute
provides, in relevant part, that “the Attorney General may
not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General
decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened
in that country because of the alien’s … religion.” 

(b)(3)(A). A showing of past persecution permits an
immigration judge to apply a presumption of future perse-
cution for purposes of evaluating a withholding claim.
No. 21-2844                                                  7

(b)(1). But Gulomjonov had not suffered
persecution in his home country, so he needed to establish
that “his … life or freedom would be threatened in the
future,” which in turn required him to establish that “it is
more likely than not that he … would be persecuted on
account of … religion” if he returned to Uzbekistan. 

§ 1208.16(b)(2). He could satisfy this burden by showing that
the government in Uzbekistan would single him out for
persecution, or alternatively, that the government engaged in
a pattern or practice of persecuting similarly situated per-
sons. Id.
    Gulomjonov did not claim that he would be singled out
for persecution. In an effort to prove a pattern or practice of
government-sponsored mistreatment of Catholics, he sub-
mitted several governmental and nongovernmental reports
noting that although the Catholic Church is not illegal in
Uzbekistan, the government surveilled some church ser-
vices, arrested proselytizers, banned a Catholic youth camp,
and generally harassed Christians.
    The immigration judge acknowledged this evidence but
found it insufficient to show the degree and persistence of
mistreatment necessary to prove a pattern or practice of
persecution. The judge accordingly denied the request for
withholding of removal. And because the requirements for
relief under the torture convention are more stringent than
for withholding of removal, see id. § 1208.16(c)(2), the judge
denied the CAT claim as well and entered a removal order.
    The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the immigra-
tion judge’s decision in all respects. The Board agreed that
Gulomjonov’s asylum application was untimely because he
did not file it within a reasonable time of his religious con-
8                                                  No. 21-2844

version. Gulomjonov argued that the immigration judge had
picked the wrong date from which to start the reasonable-
time clock. Like the immigration judge, however, the Board
concluded that the relevant change in circumstances was
Gulomjonov’s religious conversion, which occurred no later
than April 2019; the date on which Gulomjonov told his
father about his conversion had no bearing on his asylum
eligibility.
    In a new claim, Gulomjonov argued before the Board that
certain “extraordinary circumstances” excused his failure to
apply for asylum within one year of his arrival. The “ex-
traordinary circumstances” exception to the one-year filing
deadline appears alongside the changed-circumstances
exception but is distinct. See § 1158(a)(2)(D) (providing that a
late asylum application “may be considered … if the alien
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General …
extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing”).
Gulomjonov pointed to the following circumstances that he
characterized as “extraordinary”: (1) his age; (2) his success-
ful maintenance of student status until January of 2019; and
(3) his arrest and detention, which led to difficulties with his
wife and access to counsel. Because he had not raised this
argument before the immigration judge, however, the Board
deemed it waived—and in any event, insufficient to excuse
his delayed filing.
   The Board also upheld the immigration judge’s decision
denying Gulomjonov’s withholding claim on the merits.
Accepting and elaborating on the judge’s analysis, the Board
explained that Gulomjonov had not satisfied his burden for
withholding of removal because the country-report evidence
did not show a pattern or practice of severe and systematic
No. 21-2844                                                 9

government-sponsored mistreatment of Catholics in Uzbeki-
stan.
   Finally, the Board noted that Gulomjonov had not mean-
ingfully challenged the denial of his CAT claim. Instead, he
simply asserted that returning him to Uzbekistan would
violate the treaty obligations of the United States. The Board
deemed the issue waived and dismissed the appeal.
                       II. Discussion
    Gulomjonov raises several arguments in his petition for
review; we group them into two baskets for ease of decision.
In the first basket are his challenges to the agency’s ruling
regarding the untimeliness of his asylum application under
the “changed circumstances” exception to the one-year filing
deadline. See § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). These include both legal
and factual arguments—a distinction with implications for
our jurisdiction, as we shall see.
    In the second basket are Gulomjonov’s arguments con-
cerning the denial of his claims for withholding of removal
and relief under the torture convention. The immigration
judge denied both claims on the merits; the Board upheld
that decision for a combination of procedural and substan-
tive reasons.
    We begin with the agency’s untimeliness ruling on the
asylum claim and then take up Gulomjonov’s remaining
claims.
A. Asylum Claim
    Gulomjonov’s challenge to the agency’s untimeliness rul-
ing includes an attack on the validity of 

(a)(4)(ii), the regulation requiring late asylum seek-
10                                                No. 21-2844

ers who apply under the “changed circumstances” exception
to do so “within a reasonable period given th[e] changed
circumstances.” Gulomjonov argues that the regulation is
inconsistent with the statute and therefore invalid. Alterna-
tively, he argues that even if the regulation is valid, the
immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals
chose the wrong date on which to start the “reasonable
time” clock.
    We begin, as we must, by addressing our jurisdiction to
consider these arguments. Congress has sharply limited
judicial review of certain agency decisions regarding immi-
gration benefits. As relevant here, § 1158(a)(3) bars judicial
review of the immigration agency’s decisions under
§ 1158(a)(2), which encompasses (among other things) the
one-year filing deadline for asylum claims and the discre-
tionary exceptions to it. See § 1158(a)(2)(B) (the provision
requiring applicants to file within one year of arrival); id.
§ 1158(a)(2)(D) (the exceptions for “changed circumstances”
and “extraordinary circumstances”).
    More specifically, § 1158(a)(3) states in unequivocal
terms: “No court shall have jurisdiction to review any de-
termination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).”
The Supreme Court has explained that this provision con-
tains “plainly jurisdictional language.” Santos-Zacaria v.
Garland, 

, 419 & nn. 5–6 (2023).
    Another immigration statute, however, preserves judicial
review for “constitutional claims or questions of law.”
§ 1252(a)(2)(D). The Supreme Court has held that the preser-
vation of judicial review for questions of law includes “the
application of a legal standard to undisputed or established
facts.” Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 

 (2020).
No. 21-2844                                                   11

    Gulomjonov’s challenge to the reasonable-time regula-
tion, § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii), is clearly a question of law. His back-
up challenge to the agency’s finding about the date of his
change in circumstances is an unreviewable factual claim.
   i. Validity of 

(a)(4)(ii)
   We turn first to Gulomjonov’s challenge to the validity of
§ 1208.4(a)(4)(ii). The parties briefed this issue under the
rubric of Chevron, the longstanding framework for evaluat-
ing agency interpretations of statutes. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 

 (1984). In its most
basic formulation, the Chevron doctrine instructed courts to
defer to “permissible” agency interpretations of statutes
when the text is ambiguous or silent on the question before
the court. 

.
    This deferential framework is no longer operative. Last
year the Supreme Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright
Enterprises v. Raimondo, 

 (2024). Our new
instructions in agency cases are to interpret statutes without
deference to the agency’s interpretation, using the “tradi-
tional tools of statutory construction,” exercising our “inde-
pendent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted
within its statutory authority” while paying “[c]areful
attention to the judgment of the Executive Branch,” which
“help[s] inform that inquiry.” 

, 412–13. Especially
relevant here, the Court in Loper Bright made a point of
emphasizing that “when a particular statute delegates
authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits,
courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the
agency acts within it.” 

.
12                                                No. 21-2844

    With the new decision method in place, we can sketch
Gulomjonov’s challenge to the reasonable-time regulation. It
is fairly straightforward. He argues that because the text of
§ 1158(a)(2)(D), which contains the exceptions to the one-
year filing deadline, is silent about any temporal limits, the
regulation imposing a “reasonable time” limitation on
applications exceeds the Attorney General’s authority. This
statutory silence, he says, is especially telling when consid-
ered against the backdrop of the general filing deadline in
§ 1158(a)(2)(B), which shows that Congress knew how to
impose a time limit and expressly declined to impose one for
the exceptions in subsection (D).
     Our reading of the statutory text and structure yields a
different conclusion. By its terms, § 1158(a)(2)(D) is an
explicit delegation of authority to the Attorney General to
determine exceptions to the one-year filing deadline based
on an alien’s change in circumstances (or alternatively,
“extraordinary circumstances”). The statutory delegation is
broad enough to include the authority to set a time limit for
filing applications.
    As a preliminary matter, the statute’s one-year deadline
for asylum applications demonstrates a general congression-
al preference for prompt applications and temporal limits on
eligibility. The language of the changed-circumstances
exception vests the Attorney General with wide discretion to
determine whether changed circumstances warrant an
exception to the general one-year deadline: it provides that a
late application “may be considered … if the alien demon-
strates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General … the
existence of changed circumstances which materially affect
No. 21-2844                                                   13

the applicant’s eligibility for asylum” (emphases added).
§ 1158(a)(2)(D).
    This is a very broad delegation of discretionary authority.
See Vasile v. Gonzales, 

 (7th Cir. 2005) (de-
scribing § 1158(a)(2)(D) and noting that its “[p]ermissive
language that refers to demonstrating something to the
agency’s ‘satisfaction’ is inherently discretionary”). The
Attorney General’s broad authority to determine eligibility
for the exception implicitly includes the authority to prom-
ulgate a timing requirement for those seeking to benefit from
the exception. After all, doing something “to the satisfaction
of” a decisionmaker is ordinarily understood to include
doing so in accordance with the decisionmaker’s procedural
rules, including timing requirements.
    Gulomjonov’s restrictive interpretation is inconsistent
with the breadth of the statutory delegation. It’s also difficult
to reconcile with the general one-year filing deadline in
§ 1158(a)(2)(B), which, as we’ve noted, reflects a congres-
sional preference for prompt applications and temporal
limits on asylum claims. If, as Gulomjonov argues, the
Attorney General’s statutory authority to determine eligibil-
ity for the exception excludes the authority to impose a time
limit, then an asylum seeker could wait many years after a
material change in circumstances yet still have his applica-
tion considered.
    The reasonable-time regulation sensibly avoids this out-
come and aligns with the congressional preference for
prompt asylum applications while also providing an oppor-
tunity for applicants to justify their delay in relation to the
relevant change in circumstances. In this way, the regulation
fits comfortably within the Attorney General’s broad statuto-
14                                                    No. 21-2844

ry discretion to grant exceptions based on changed
circumstances. The reasonable-time regulation does not
exceed     the   Attorney General’s   authority  under
§ 1158(a)(2)(D).
     ii. Timing of Gulomjonov’s change in circumstances
   Alternatively, Gulomjonov argues that the immigration
judge and the Board mistakenly found that the material
change in his circumstances—his religious conversion—
occurred in April 2019. He contends that he did not fully
commit to Catholicism until he told his father about his
conversion, so his change in circumstance occurred in De-
cember 2019 rather than in April.
    This is a factual argument, not a legal one, so it lies out-
side our limited jurisdiction. “We have held that the issues of
changed or extraordinary circumstances are questions of fact
that lie outside the realm of § 1252(a)(2)(D).” Yang v. Holder,

 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Khan v. Filip, 

 (7th Cir. 2009) (explaining that “factual determina-
tions (such as whether the asylum application was filed
within the one-year deadline) and discretionary decisions
(such as whether the alien has demonstrated ‘extraordinary
circumstances’ justifying the delay) do not fall within the
exception to the jurisdictional bar … under § 1252(a)(2)(D)”).
   The disagreement about the date of Gulomjonov’s change
in circumstances is a quintessentially factual issue. The
immigration judge weighed the evidence regarding the
chronology of his religious conversion and determined that
his change in circumstances occurred no later than April
2019. By that time—according to his own account—he was
regularly attending church, reading the Bible, and consid-
No. 21-2844                                                    15

ered himself a Catholic; and that month he also disclosed his
conversion to his boss, coworkers, and roommates.
Gulomjonov has not explained how the judge’s distillation
and assessment of this evidence can be recharacterized as a
legal issue.
    It’s true, as we’ve noted, that reviewable questions of law
under § 1252(a)(2)(D) include mixed questions of law and
fact—that is, “the application of a legal standard to undis-
puted or established facts.” Guerrero-Lasprilla, 

.
But Gulomjonov neither cited Guerrero-Lasprilla nor made
any effort to explain how the immigration judge’s finding
about the date of his conversion might be characterized as a
mixed question of law and fact. Although we have an inde-
pendent obligation to address potential barriers to our juris-
diction, we “need not bend over backwards to construct
alternative theories” to support jurisdiction when the party
asserting it hasn’t done so. Travelers Prop. Cas. v. Good, 

 (7th Cir. 2012). It's well established that the
proponent of jurisdiction “bears the burden of demonstrat-
ing its existence.” Hart v. FedEx Ground Package Sys. Inc., 

 (7th Cir. 2006). This principle applies to peti-
tioners seeking review of agency decisions in the immigra-
tion context.
     Section 1158(a)(3) is the baseline; it blocks judicial review
of the immigration agency’s decisions under § 1158(a)(2)—
i.e., determinations regarding the timeliness of asylum
applications and the discretionary exceptions to the one-year
deadline. Section 1252(a)(2)(D), in turn, saves certain claims
from the jurisdictional bar, but it is the petitioner’s burden to
“identify a legal or constitutional defect in the agency’s
decision [that] would allow us to review the agency’s deter-
16                                                         No. 21-2844

mination regarding the [asylum] application’s timeliness.”
López-Pérez v. Garland, 

 (1st Cir. 2022) (quota-
tion marks omitted); see also Ixcuna-Garcia v. Garland, 

, 44–45 (1st Cir. 2022) (“The key that unlocks federal court
review in such cases is a colorable constitutional or legal
question that is not simply a thinly-veiled challenge to the
[immigration judge’s] factfinding.” (quotation marks omit-
ted)).
    Accordingly, Gulomjonov had the burden to identify a
reviewable constitutional claim or legal argument notwith-
standing the general jurisdictional bar. His argument about
the validity of the reasonable-time regulation fits the bill; we
have addressed and rejected that claim on the merits. His
fallback argument about the date of his religious conversion
does not.4
B. Withholding of Removal and CAT Relief
    Gulomjonov also challenges the denial of his claims for
withholding of removal and relief under the torture conven-
tion. He claims that the immigration judge misconstrued the
evidence about the treatment of Catholics in Uzbekistan. The

4 In an undeveloped argument, Gulomjonov briefly mentions the claim
he raised for the first time before the Board: that certain other factors—
his young age, immigration detention, and maintenance of lawful
nonimmigrant status through January 2019—should be construed as
extraordinary circumstances justifying agency review of his late asylum
claim. As we’ve noted, the “extraordinary circumstances” exception to
the one-year filing deadline is distinct from the “changed circumstances”
exception, though they both appear in § 1158(a)(2)(D). The Board held
that Gulomjonov waived this claim because he did not raise it before the
immigration judge. We see no basis to disturb that ruling.
No. 21-2844                                                 17

Board adopted the immigration judge’s analysis while
adding some of its own, so we review the judge’s reasoning
as supplemented by the Board’s. Khan, 

. Our
review is extremely deferential: we will reverse only if the
record “compels a different result.” 

 (quotation marks
omitted); see also Tsegmed v. Sessions, 

(7th Cir. 2017).
    Gulomjonov’s argument is perfunctory. He does not en-
gage with the record or any aspect of the agency’s decision.
He briefly gestures at the applicable legal standard, but he
offers no analysis and does not cite any part of the 800-page
administrative record. In the single page of his brief devoted
to this argument, he asserts summarily that the evidence
shows “various forms of abuse” and “clearly establish[es]
that ethnic Uzbeks” who convert to Christianity “face[] a
heightened threat of mistreatment.” In other words, he
contends that the agency misconstrued the evidence without
pointing to a single piece of evidence that was misconstrued.
    This kind of argument—undeveloped and unsupported
by relevant authority or citation to the record—could be
dismissed as waived. United States v. Butler, 

(7th Cir. 2023); Cruz-Martinez v. Sessions, 

(7th Cir. 2018) (finding waiver of a claim for CAT relief
where the petitioner “only generally argue[d] that the Board
erred and d[id] not cite specific evidence or arguments in
support of his claim that he would be subject to torture”).
Waiver aside, our review of the record does not compel a
different conclusion on Gulomjonov’s withholding claim.
   To obtain relief, Gulomjonov had the burden to show
that he faces a “clear probability of future persecution” if
removed to Uzbekistan, Garcia-Arce v. Barr, 

, 377
18                                                 No. 21-2844

(7th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks omitted). This, in turn,
required him to produce evidence of a pattern or practice of
govern-sponsored or government-tolerated persecution of
Catholics in Uzbekistan—that is, “a systematic, pervasive, or
organized effort” to persecute Catholics that is “perpetrated
or tolerated by state actors.” Krishnapillai v. Holder, 

 (7th Cir. 2009).
    Gulomjonov points to no specific evidence of a systemat-
ic, pervasive, or organized effort to do severe harm to Catho-
lics or Christians. The country reports describe harassment
of and discrimination against Christians, but the immigra-
tion judge and the Board concluded that this evidence was
insufficient to establish the kind and degree of severe mis-
treatment required to qualify for withholding of removal.
Nothing in the record compels a contrary conclusion.
    Finally, the Board concluded that Gulomjonov waived his
CAT claim by not meaningfully challenging the immigration
judge’s denial of it. Gulomjonov has not addressed the
Board’s waiver ruling. Regardless, his failure to demonstrate
a clear probability of future persecution for purposes of his
withholding claim also means that he has failed to prove a
likelihood of torture, as required for relief under the torture
convention. Khan, 

. There is no basis to disturb
the agency’s denial of his CAT claim.
    Accordingly, Gulomjonov’s factual challenge to the agen-
cy’s untimeliness ruling on his asylum claim is DISMISSED for
lack of jurisdiction. In all other respects, his petition for
review is DENIED.
No. 21-2844                                                    19

    RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. I concur in the judgment of the court.
I respectfully disagree with my colleagues on one point. In my
view, the petitioner adequately preserved the issue of
whether he filed for asylum within a reasonable period of
time after his circumstances changed. We have jurisdiction to
consider this mixed question of law and fact. See Wilkinson v.
Garland, 

 (2024); Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 

 (2020). However, giving the determination of the
Board appropriate deference, I would not disturb its conclu-
sion that the petitioner did not file within a reasonable period
of time. See Arreola-Ochoa v. Garland, 

 (7th Cir.
2022) (noting that, even after Guerrero-Lasprilla, “[w]e must
defer to the Board’s handling of this type of mixed question
of law and fact”).