Case Name: Tammy Po Wah LAU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-23
Citations: 168 F. App'x 855
Docket Number: No. 04-73293
Parties: Tammy Po Wah LAU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 168
Pages: 855–855

Head Matter:
Tammy Po Wah LAU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-73293.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
Decided Feb. 23, 2006.
Robert G. Ryan, Esq., Law Offices of Eugene C. Wong, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tammy Po Wah Lau is a native and citizen of China. Lau petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision, which affirmed the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") order denying her application for asylum as time-barred, and denying her claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Lau only contests the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
'Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ's decision while adding its own reasons, we review both decisions." See Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.2000).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ and BIA's denial of withholding of removal because Lau failed to establish that it is more likely than not that she will be persecuted if returned to China. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1218, 1222-23 (9th Cir .2005).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ's denial of CAT relief. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).
The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 750 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.