nexus element, the Board failed to consider evidence, raising an issue of reviewable legal error. He claims that because he experienced extortion and threats from MS-13 as a consequence of his business ownership, a conclusion of no nexus “ignores [his own] credible testimony.” His argument misses the point. It’s true that the immigration judge found Lopez generally credible, and observed that “there is some support” for Lopez’s fears of MS-13 given the gang’s proclivity toward violence. However, both the immigration judge and Board concluded that it wasn’t Lopez’s business ownership, or his non-compliance with the gang’s demands, that mattered for purposes of the withholding analysis. It was simply his (perceived) wealth. See generally In re V-T-S-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 792, 792 (BIA 1997) (<HOLDING>). Lopez thus failed to establish that his life
holding that material alterations in the applicants account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the agency holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lie largely within the discretion of the ij holding that an applicants wealth in the absence of evidence to suggest other motivations will not support a finding of persecution within the meaning of the immigration and nationality act holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the ij