Perez

discussion, it cited the factual findings necessary to make a nexus determination.

Then, over the next four paragraphs, the BIA consistently applied the “clear error”

standard of review to those findings. But when reaching its legal conclusion, the

23-3782 BIA did not make a clear error finding. Instead, the BIA reviewed the nexus

determination de novo and “agree[d] with the [IJ’s] conclusions” and, later, stated

that “[w]e agree with the [IJ’s] ultimate conclusion.”

Finally, the IJ and BIA did not need to discuss every piece of evidence. 1 See

Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Villegas Sanchez

v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021). In fact, they are presumed to have

reviewed all the evidence. Larita-Martinez, 220 F.3d at 1095–96. To succeed here,

Petitioners needed to show that the agency misstated the record or ignored

potentially dispositive evidence. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771–72 (9th Cir.

2011). Petitioners do not meet their burden.

The expert testimony Petitioners complain the agency did not review provided

color on the nature of gang power in El Salvador (explaining that…