Orellana-Mejia

facts, procedural history, and arguments underlying this appeal, we do not detail

them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We deny the petition.

We “review only the BIA’s opinion, except to the extent that it expressly

adopted portions of the IJ’s decision.” Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d

1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062,

1064 (9th Cir. 2020)). We review the BIA’s denial of relief for substantial

evidence, meaning we “must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence

compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028

(9th Cir. 2019).

1. We conclude the BIA did not err in finding that Avilio, who is male, was

not a member of the particular social group “women in El Salvador” and therefore

could not establish a nexus to a protected ground. The agency’s denial of asylum

and withholding claims was supported by substantial evidence.

2. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision to deny asylum to both applicants for

failure to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in El

Salvador on account of a protected ground. Because the IJ found that Leslie is…