
    Martha LUQUE SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-71999.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2006.
    
    Decided March 16, 2006.
    Martha Luque Sanchez, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    NVL-Distriet Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       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.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martha Luque Sanchez, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Luque Sanchez is statutorily ineligible for asylum based on the one-year time bar. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1218, 1221-22 (9th Cir. 2005).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 over Luque Sanchez’s withholding of removal claim. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 884 (9th Cir.2004), we deny the claim.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Luque Sanchez’s withholding of removal claim because the record does not compel the conclusion that the threats Luque Sanchez received are sufficient to establish that it is more likely than not that she would be persecuted upon return to Colombia. See Ramadan, 427 F.3d at 1223.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
     