Ortiz-Esquivel

facts are considered “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (emphasis added).

We review questions of law de novo. Ruiz-Colmenares, 25 F.4th at 748. Where, as

here, “the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the immigration judge’s

reasoning, we review both decisions.” Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th

696, 702 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).

1. Esquivel’s asylum and withholding of removal applications fail because

substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Esquivel did not show that

he was or will likely be persecuted on account of a protected ground if returned to

Mexico.1 Substantial evidence in the record supports the agency’s conclusion that

1 The agency concluded that Esquivel’s asylum application was untimely and, in the alternative, that he was ineligible for asylum. Because the agency ultimately decided Esquivel’s asylum application on the merits, we need not review its determination as to the timeliness of the application. See Kasnecovic v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 812, 814–15 (9th Cir. 2005); see also I.N.S. v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per…