context: Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ's decision without adding any further explanation, we review the IJ's decision directly. We review de novo the IJ's legal conclusion that the tasks performed by Gao rendered him a "persecutor" under the statute.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 361 F.3d 161, 165
citation_a.parenthetical: "The BIA's application of law to undisputed facts is reviewed de novo."
citation_a.sentence: See Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 165 (2d Cir.2004) (“The BIA’s application of law to undisputed facts is reviewed de novo.”); cf. Mirzoyan v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 217, 220 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam) (determination of whether the facts meet the legal definition of persecution “is a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo ”).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 457 F.3d 217, 220
citation_b.parenthetical: determination of whether the facts meet the legal definition of persecution "is a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo "
citation_b.sentence: See Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 165 (2d Cir.2004) (“The BIA’s application of law to undisputed facts is reviewed de novo.”); cf. Mirzoyan v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 217, 220 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam) (determination of whether the facts meet the legal definition of persecution “is a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo ”).