8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D). We review the facts upon which the BIA’s decision rests to ensure that they are supported by substantial evidence from the record considered as a whole, Espinosa-Cortez v. Att’y Gen., 607 F.3d 101, 106 (3d Cir.2010), and we will reverse based on a factual error only if any reasonable fact-finder would be “compelled to conclude otherwise,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo, but we accord deference under Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), to its interpretation ' of statutes and regulations within its enforcement jurisdiction. Wang v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 347, 349 (3d Cir.2004); see also Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997) (<HOLDING>). III. Discussion Huang raises three issues on
holding that a secretarys interpretation of a departments regulation is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation holding that courts should defer to agencys interpretation of its own regulations if not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation holding that deference is owed to an agencys interpretation of its own categorical exclusion regulations so long as that interpretation is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation citation and quotation marks excluded holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference