Bondi

facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction, see 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.

Where, as here, “the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law,”

our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that it expressly

adopts the decision of the immigration judge. Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164,

1169 (9th Cir. 2012). We review de novo legal questions and the BIA’s “factual

findings for substantial evidence.” Corpeno-Romero v. Garland, 120 F.4th 570,

577 (9th Cir. 2024). Under the latter standard, we will uphold the BIA’s findings

“unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

contrary[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Petitioners’ applications

for asylum and withholding of removal on past persecution grounds. Petitioners

preliminarily argue that the BIA erred by finding that lead Petitioner Limascca-

Tello only suffered a single death threat. But given the lack of any indication that

pointing a firearm at Limascca-Tello was specifically a threat to kill him if he

24-946 attested to the crime, the BIA’s…