
    Sarah NKURUNUNGI, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent.
    No. 05-1604.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 6, 2006.
    Filed: Sept. 11, 2006.
    Nancy Alaine Peterson, Brian Lincoln Aust, Guyton Law Office, St. Paul, MN, for Petitioner.
    Scott Baniecke, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Bloomington, MN, Richard M. Evans, Thomas W. Hussey, Linda S. Wendtland, Paul Fiorino, Luis E. Perez, Karen Drummond, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Lori Scialabba, U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review, Falls Church, VA, Bruce Norum, Bureau of Immigration 
      & Customs Enforcement Department of Homeland Security, Bloomington, MN, for Respondent.
    Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Sarah Nkurunungi, a citizen of Uganda, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which summarily affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

After careful review of the record, we conclude the IJ’s asylum decision—based on the finding that Nkurunungi failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution—is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Etar-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 982-83 (8th Cir.2005) (standard of review). Further, because Nkurunungi failed to meet the burden of proof on her asylum claim, her claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails as well, see Turay v. Ashcroft, 405 F.3d 663, 667 (8th Cir.2005) (withholding-of-removal standard is more rigorous than asylum standard), and we see no basis in the record for CAT relief, see Habtemicael v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 774, 780-82 (8th Cir.2004) (discussing considerations relevant to relief under CAT).

Accordingly, we deny the petition. We also deny Nkurunungi’s motion to supplement the record. We previously granted Nkurunungi’s motion for stay of her removal and voluntary-departure period; the remaining period in which she may voluntarily depart the United States shall begin to run when our mandate in this case is issued, see Falaja v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 889, 899-900 (8th Cir.2005). 
      
      . The IJ's decision, therefore, constitutes the final agency determination for purposes of judicial review. See Kimumwe v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 319, 322 (8th Cir.2005).
     