Svetlana Vladimirovna Akinshina v. Gonzales

*695 MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Svetlana Vladimirovna Akinshina and her minor son 1 appeal the denial of their application for asylum and withholding of removal issued by an immigration judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Where, as here, the BIA issues a separate decision, the court reviews the BIA’s decision and those portions of the IJ’s decision expressly adopted by the BIA. Molinar-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002). Legal determinations are reviewed de novo, Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir.2002), while findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir.2004).

1. Petitioner cannot show that substantial evidence compels the conclusion that she suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her Pentecostal religious beliefs. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir.1988). Although Petitioner experienced acts of violence while in her country of origin, she failed to show that these acts of violence, if rising to the level of persecution, were “on account of’ her religion. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d…