Jeronimo

MEMORANDUM **

Martin Luis Jeronimo petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 1 Jeronimo argues that the agency erred by concluding that he did not establish eligibility for asylum based on past persecution in Mexico.

Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s findings and reasoning, we review the IJ’s decision for substantial evidence. 2 Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 862 (9th Cir.2001); Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1999). The IJ’s eligibility determinations must be upheld if they are “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir.2004) (citation omitted). We must uphold the IJ’s findings unless the evidence presented would compel a contrary result. Singh-Kaur, 183 F.3d at 1149-50 .

To be eligible for asylum, an alien must show that he or she is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground such as political opinion. 8 U.S.C. §…