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 cit-
izen of Uzbekistan, came to the United States as a visitor in
October 2016 and obtained a student visa extending his stay

∗ 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

to January 2019. He overstayed that authorization and in No-
vember 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 religious persecution if re-
turned to Uzbekistan, a predominantly Muslim country.
    Asylum applications must be filed within one year of arri-
val 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 re-
maining claims were denied on the merits. The Board of Im-
migration 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 immigra-
tion judge was mistaken about the date of his religious con-
version. He also argues that the agency misconstrued the
evidence about the treatment of Christians in Uzbekistan in
denying his other claims.
    We dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. Our
jurisdiction to review the agency’s untimeliness ruling is
No. 21-2844                                                    3

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 stu-
dent visa authorizing him to remain here for educational pur-
poses until January 2019.
    According to Gulomjonov’s asylum application and testi-
mony at his removal hearing, he became interested in Cathol-
icism 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 Uz-
bekistan; 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 ques-
tions about the religion, and their conversation fueled
Gulomjonov’s interest in learning more about the Catholic
faith.
    By late 2018, Gulomjonov’s interest in Catholicism had in-
tensified. Following his arrest in early November for an alter-
cation with two women, he turned to Catholicism for solace
4                                                             No. 21-2844

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 regu-
larly attending church. According to his application and tes-
timony, 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 coworkers and room-
mates 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 con-
version. In December 2019 Gulomjonov told his father that he
had converted to Catholicism.
  Removal proceedings followed. In February 2020
Gulomjonov conceded removability and applied for asylum,


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

fect, 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 cit-

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

withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). He argued that he would be perse-
cuted in Uzbekistan because of his conversion to Catholi-
cism. 3
    An immigration judge held a removal hearing and denied
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 over-
come the time bar, Gulomjonov invoked the changed-circum-
stances exception, which provides that an asylum application
“may be considered” notwithstanding noncompliance 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 appli-
cant’s eligibility for asylum.” § 1158(a)(2)(D). Gulomjonov ar-
gued 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
asylum application and testimony at his removal hearing, the
judge determined that his conversion occurred no later than


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

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 roommates of his
conversion to Catholicism. Because he did not apply for asy-
lum until February 2020—ten months later—the judge deter-
mined 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, not-
ing 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 Cath-
olic 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 al-
ien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country be-
cause of the alien’s … religion.” 

(b)(3)(A). A
showing of past persecution permits an immigration judge to
apply a presumption of future persecution for purposes of
evaluating a withholding claim. 

(b)(1). But
Gulomjonov had not suffered persecution in his home coun-
try, so he needed to establish that “his … life or freedom
would be threatened in the future,” which in turn required
No. 21-2844                                                    7

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 situ-
ated persons. 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 submit-
ted several governmental and nongovernmental reports not-
ing that although the Catholic Church is not illegal in
Uzbekistan, the government surveilled some church services,
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 per-
secution. The judge accordingly denied the request for with-
holding 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 de-
nied 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 conver-
sion. 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
8                                                   No. 21-2844

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 “extraor-
dinary circumstances” exception to the one-year filing dead-
line appears alongside the changed-circumstances exception
but is distinct. See § 1158(a)(2)(D) (providing that a late asy-
lum application “may be considered … if the alien demon-
strates 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 successful
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 argu-
ment 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. Ac-
cepting and elaborating on the judge’s analysis, the Board ex-
plained 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
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
No. 21-2844                                                    9

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 re-
garding 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 ju-
risdiction, 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 substantive rea-
sons.
    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 seekers
who apply under the “changed circumstances” exception to
do so “within a reasonable period given th[e] changed cir-
cumstances.” Gulomjonov argues that the regulation is incon-
sistent with the statute and therefore invalid. Alternatively, he
argues that even if the regulation is valid, the immigration
10                                                   No. 21-2844

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 judi-
cial review of certain agency decisions regarding immigration
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 dead-
line for asylum claims and the discretionary 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 circum-
stances”).
    More specifically, § 1158(a)(3) states in unequivocal terms:
“No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination
of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).” The Supreme
Court has explained that this provision contains “plainly ju-
risdictional 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, 

, 225 (2020).
    Gulomjonov’s challenge to the reasonable-time regula-
tion, § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii), is clearly a question of law. His backup
challenge to the agency’s finding about the date of his change
in circumstances is an unreviewable factual claim.
No. 21-2844                                                      11

   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 ru-
bric of Chevron, the longstanding framework for evaluating
agency interpretations of statutes. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat.
Res. Def. Council, Inc., 

 (1984). In its most basic for-
mulation, 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 En-
terprises v. Raimondo, 

 (2024). Our new instruc-
tions 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 atten-
tion 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 re-
spect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts
within it.” 

.
     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 regu-
lation imposing a “reasonable time” limitation on
12                                                    No. 21-2844

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 im-
pose 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 dif-
ferent 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 cir-
cumstances”). The statutory delegation is broad enough to in-
clude 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 congressional
preference for prompt applications and temporal limits on el-
igibility. The language of the changed-circumstances excep-
tion vests the Attorney General with wide discretion to
determine whether changed circumstances warrant an excep-
tion to the general one-year deadline: it provides that a late
application “may be considered … if the alien demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the Attorney General … the existence of
changed circumstances which materially affect the appli-
cant’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) (describ-
ing § 1158(a)(2)(D) and noting that its “[p]ermissive language
that refers to demonstrating something to the agency’s ‘satis-
faction’ is inherently discretionary”). The Attorney General’s
broad authority to determine eligibility for the exception
No. 21-2844                                                   13

implicitly includes the authority to promulgate a timing re-
quirement for those seeking to benefit from the exception. Af-
ter all, doing something “to the satisfaction of” a
decisionmaker is ordinarily understood to include doing so in
accordance with the decisionmaker’s procedural rules, in-
cluding 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 congressional
preference for prompt applications and temporal limits on
asylum claims. If, as Gulomjonov argues, the Attorney Gen-
eral’s statutory authority to determine eligibility for the ex-
ception 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 application considered.
    The reasonable-time regulation sensibly avoids this out-
come and aligns with the congressional preference for prompt
asylum applications while also providing an opportunity for
applicants to justify their delay in relation to the relevant
change in circumstances. In this way, the regulation fits com-
fortably within the Attorney General’s broad statutory discre-
tion 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—oc-
curred in April 2019. He contends that he did not fully commit
14                                                    No. 21-2844

to Catholicism until he told his father about his conversion, so
his change in circumstance occurred in December 2019 rather
than in April.
    This is a factual argument, not a legal one, so it lies outside
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 ex-
ception 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 immi-
gration 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 at-
tending church, reading the Bible, and considered himself a
Catholic; and that month he also disclosed his conversion to
his boss, coworkers, and roommates. Gulomjonov has not ex-
plained how the judge’s distillation and assessment of this ev-
idence 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, 589 U.S. at 225.
But Gulomjonov neither cited Guerrero-Lasprilla nor made any
effort to explain how the immigration judge’s finding about
No. 21-2844                                                     15

the date of his conversion might be characterized as a mixed
question of law and fact. Although we have an independent
obligation to address potential barriers to our jurisdiction, we
“need not bend over backwards to construct alternative theo-
ries” 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 demonstrating its existence.” Hart v.
FedEx Ground Package Sys. Inc., 

 (7th Cir.
2006). This principle applies to petitioners seeking review of
agency decisions in the immigration 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 appli-
cations and the discretionary exceptions to the one-year dead-
line. Section 1252(a)(2)(D), in turn, saves certain claims from
the jurisdictional bar, but it is the petitioner’s burden to “iden-
tify a legal or constitutional defect in the agency’s decision
[that] would allow us to review the agency’s determination
regarding the [asylum] application’s timeliness.” López-Pérez
v. Garland, 

, 111 (1st Cir. 2022) (quotation 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 omitted)).
   Accordingly, Gulomjonov had the burden to identify a re-
viewable 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
16                                                          No. 21-2844

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
Board adopted the immigration judge’s analysis while adding
some of its own, so we review the judge’s reasoning as sup-
plemented 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 of-
fers no analysis and does not cite any part of the 800-page ad-
ministrative 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

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 nonimmi-
grant 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

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 sin-
gle piece of evidence that was misconstrued.
    This kind of argument—undeveloped and unsupported
by relevant authority or citation to the record—could be dis-
missed as waived. United States v. Butler, 

, 368 (7th
Cir. 2023); Cruz-Martinez v. Sessions, 

 (7th Cir.
2018) (finding waiver of a claim for CAT relief where the pe-
titioner “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 (7th Cir.
2019) (quotation marks omitted). This, in turn, required him
to produce evidence of a pattern or practice of government-
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 systematic,
pervasive, or organized effort to do severe harm to Catholics
or Christians. The country reports describe harassment of and
discrimination against Christians, but the immigration judge
and the Board concluded that this evidence was insufficient
to establish the kind and degree of severe mistreatment
18                                                  No. 21-2844

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
agency’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, 

, 225 (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, 

, 610 (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”).