Opinion ID: 2642352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: Ordinarily, we review decisions of the BIA, not the IJ. Larios v. Holder, 608 F.3d 105, 107 (1st Cir. 2010). However, where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms the IJ's asylum -9- determination, . . . we review the IJ's decision as if it were the decision of the BIA. Id. We review an IJ's findings of fact, including the determination of whether persecution occurred on account of a protected ground, under the familiar and deferential substantial evidence standard. Lopez de Hincapie v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 213, 217 (1st Cir. 2007). Under this rule, we respect the IJ's findings if supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole. Larios, 608 F.3d at 107 (quoting Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)). However, our deference is not unlimited, and we may not affirm [the IJ's findings] if we cannot conscientiously find that the evidence supporting [them] is substantial, when viewed in the light that the record in its entirety furnishes, including the body of evidence opposed to the [IJ's] view. Kartasheva v. Holder, 582 F.3d 96, 105 (1st Cir. 2009) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, we are obligated to reject the IJ's findings if a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. Precetaj v. Holder, 649 F.3d 72, 75 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(b)).