Vacating and remanding for further agency proceedings where the IJ and the BIA “contravened prevailing case law, disregarded crucial evidence, and failed to explain [their] decisions” for every prong of the petitioner’s asylum claim (persecution, nexus, and government unwilling or unable to control). The Court, sitting en banc, also held that it had jurisdiction over the petitioner’s government control claim because the BIA addressed it in sufficient detail below after raising it sua sponte. Judge Quattlebaum, writing in dissent, would have dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction or denied it on the merits.
Date of Decision
Published
