Perez Garcia v. Garland

facts, we do not recount them here, except as necessary to provide context to our

ruling.

“Where, as here, the BIA has reviewed the IJ’s decision and incorporated

portions of it as its own, we treat the incorporated parts of the IJ’s decision as the

BIA’s.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting

Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002)). Reviewing legal

conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence, Ruiz-

Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022), we deny the petition.

The IJ denied Perez Garcia’s application for asylum and withholding of

removal because Perez Garcia failed to establish harm rising to the level of past

1 Trinidad Perez Garcia (“Trinidad”), the lead petitioner, his partner Ana Maria Prado Cervantes (“Ana Maria”), and their two minor children filed separate applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. Trinidad listed one of the children as a derivate beneficiary on his application, and Ana Maria listed both children as derivative beneficiaries on her application. Each member of the family seeks asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based…