Pratap Rawat v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Pratap Singh Rawat seeks review of his claims for asylum and withholding of removal.
Our review is limited to the underlying Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order because “the BIA wrote its own decision and did not adopt the IJ’s decision.” Aden v. Holder, 589 F.Sd 1040, 1043 (9th Cir.2009). But even if we could “look to the IJ’s oral decision as a guide to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion,” see Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1190-91 (9th Cir.2007), we would still deny the petition.
Asylum applicants bear the burden of proving past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.2010); Zhao v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1027, 1029-30 (9th Cir.2008).
The BIA’s factual determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir.2005). Under that standard, the court “upholds the BIA’s determination unless the evidence in the record compels a contrary conclusion.” Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir.2011) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).