
    Amador Martinez CARRASCO, Petitioner v. Jeff B. SESSIONS, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
    No. 16-2133
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 6, 2017
    Filed: February 16, 2017
    Chinedu I. Igbokwe, Banwo & Igbokwe Law Firm, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner
    Linda Y. Cheng, Trial Attorney, Jessica Dawgert, Senior Litigation Counsel, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Carl H. McIntyre, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Oil Oil, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Jeff B. Sessions is automatically substituted pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).
    
   PER CURIAM.

Mexican citizen Amador Martinez Car-rasco petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of withholding of removal. Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision, but adds its own reasoning, this court reviews both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions together. See Garcia-Milian v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 2016) (decisions are reviewed to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence, and are reversed only if petitioner shows that evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find in his favor). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the determination that Martinez Carrasco does not qualify for withholding of removal based on his membership in the particular social group he identified. See Gonzalez Cano v. Lynch, 809 F.3d 1056, 1058 (8th Cir. 2016) (to establish entitlement to withholding of removal, applicant must demonstrate clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened due to, among other things, membership in particular social group: he must show it is more likely than not he will suffer persecution if returned to his home country). The petition for review is denied.  