or had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. Finally, the IJ denied Plesea’s applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision that Plesea did not establish that he had suffered past persecution and, therefore, was not entitled to a presumption of future persecution. The BIA expressly declined to reach the IJ’s findings that Plesea’s application was not timely and that he was not credible. However, even though the BIA’s decision did not mention the IJ’s finding that Plesea had firmly resettled in Italy, the BIA affirmed that finding when it cited Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994). See Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). The BIA also affirmed the IJ’s denial of
holding that this courts review is limited to the bia decision and the portions of the ijs decision that it expressly adopted holding no due process violation where the bia affirms the ijs decision without issuing a separate opinion holding that we will not review portions of an ijs ruling that are not adopted by the bia holding the bias decision upholding the ijs finding of removability  was the final order holding that the bia adopts the ijs entire decision when it cites burbano and expresses no disagreement with the ijs decision