Gonzalez-Manzo

facts are considered “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. at 748 (emphasis in original) (citation

omitted). We review questions of law de novo. Id. And in those circumstances

where the BIA “agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Garcia-

Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018).

Petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. “To be eligible

for asylum, a petitioner has the burden to demonstrate a likelihood of ‘persecution

or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Sharma v. Garland,

9 F.4th 1052, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). Eligibility for withholding

of removal requires the petitioner “discharge this burden by a ‘clear probability.’”

Id. (citation omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). In certain instances,

“[p]roving past persecution can satisfy this burden, as it gives rise to a rebuttable

presumption of future persecution.” Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1064

2 (9th Cir. 2020). But here the record does not compel a…