Fedorov

facts as those of Fedorov and the BIA’s findings and legal analysis are applicable to all, we refer only to Fedorov and his application when discussing the petition for review of the BIA’s dismissal.

24-219, 24-5468 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Fedorov did

not suffer past persecution. The teasing and harassment Fedorov endured as a child

does not rise to that level, especially given that he did not suffer any physical harm

because of it. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016–17 (9th Cir. 2003)

(explaining that whether the petitioner suffered “significant physical violence” is a

major factor in determining whether the record compels a finding of past

persecution). While the IJ determined that Fedorov testified credibly, Fedorov’s

claim that a gynecologist forced his wife, Natalia, to have an abortion was not

supported by medical records or her own declaration or testimony. The BIA

therefore reasonably concluded that Fedorov’s account of Natalia’s forced abortion

did not establish past persecution. See Garland v. Ming Dai, 593 U.S. 357, 371–

(2021) (explaining that even if the BIA treats a…