Hernandez-Pichinte

facts found by the Immigration Judge” to determine whether a petitioner has “[met]

2 the legal requirements for relief from removal or resolve any other legal issues that

are raised.” Matter of Z-Z-O-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 586, 591 (B.I.A. 2015) (collecting

cases). “[I]n order to establish an alternative holding on the merits, the BIA must

provide a reasoned analysis of the legal basis for its holding, specifying as well the

particular facts on which that holding relies.” Stoyanov v. INS, 172 F.3d 731, 736

(9th Cir. 1999). Here, the BIA relied on the IJ’s factual findings on Guillen-Pilar’s

and N.O.H.G.’s withholding applications in finding that they have not sustained a

claim for asylum. Specifically, the BIA cited Guillen-Pilar’s testimony that it’s now

“safer” in El Salvador, and that she and N.O.H.G. would feel safer if they returned

to El Salvador because of an increased police presence and how “the president has

captured the majority of the Maras.” Because the BIA provided a “reasoned

analysis” as to the Petitioners’ legal entitlement to relief, it permissibly reached the

merits of Guillen-Pilar’s and N.O.H.G.’s asylum applications.

As to the merits of Petitioners’…