W e s ub st itu te E ri c H
. H older, J r. , the curre nt Attor ney 1 Gene ra l ofthe Uni t ed S t at es , as the Res ponde nti n thi s ac t i on. S eeF ed . R . A p p . P . 43 (c)(2 ).



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1411 A NTCHINECHE T S EG AW A YE LE, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, 1 R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er o f the B o ard of Immigration App eals

.

No . A 76-853- 631

A RG UE D O CT OB ER 27, 2008

— D ECI DE D M AY 4, 2009

B efore K ANN E , W I L L I A MS, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . W I L L IA MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . A n tc h in ec h e T se ga w A ye le see ks re vi ew o fa fi nalo rder o f t h e B oar d ofI m m i gr ati on A pp eal s (“ BIA”). T he B I A sum m ar i l y up hel d the deni alo f2 N o. 08

- 1411 A ye le’s ap p lica tio n for a sy lu m , w ith h old in g of re m ov al, a n d p rotection un d er the C onv en tion A gainst Tortu re ( “CA T”). The BI A affi rm ed the fi nd i ng ofthe I m m i gr ati on J ud ge ( “IJ ”) thatal though Ayel e was cred ible and her su bj ec ti ve fea ro ffutur e per se cut i o n was r ea son abl e, s he f a i l e d t o p r o v e he rfe a rw a s o bj e c t i v e l y r e a s o n ab l e . We bel i eve the IJ di d not fu lly anal yze A yel e’ s f am i l y t i es c laim be c au se h e fa iled t o a d d re ss w h et h er h er fam ily co ns ti tu te d a s o ci alg r o up, di d no t di sc us s th e treat m en t ofherm othe r and uncles , and re l i ed o n Country Report s to de nyh e rc l a i m de s pi t e fi nd i ngAy e l e a nd h e rwi tne ss cre dibl e. B ec au se ofthes e defi ci enci es, we gr ant her pet i ti on f o rr ev i ew, v ac at e th e BI A’s o r dera nd r emand f o rfur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

I . B AC KGR OUND A syl um applic an t An tchi neche Tse gaw A yel e i s a n ethni c Am hara born in A dd i s Ababa, Ethi opi a o n M ar c h 2 6 , 1 9 7 5
. T he Amha r a t r ib e h a s b e e n a s s o c i a t ed w ith th e M en gistu regim e w hich ruled the cou nt ry before its overthrow by the Et hiop ian Pe op les’ R evolut ion a ry Dem ocr ati c F ro nt ( “EPR D F”) i n M ay 1991

. M engi stu H ai l e M ar i am l ed the f or m erm i l i tar y g ove rnm en t, wh i ch ha s be ena cc us ed o fpr o perty con fi sc at i o n a nd the k i l l i ng of thousands of opponents si nce the re gi m e cam e int o p ow er in 1 97 4. W h en E P R D F for c es inv a d ed A d d is Abab a i n 1 991, mem be r s o fthe M en g i stu r eg i m e an d thei r f a mi l i e s fl e d int o e xi l e . Man y we r e c a ptur e d b y E P R D F for c es an d d et ain ed , an d m an y for m e r offic ialsN o. 08

- 1411 3

B efore h is a p p oin tm en t as spo rts com m issione r, M r. Ay ele 2 had been s ecr etar y ofthe Y M CA i n Ethiopia. w er e char ged with w arcr i m es com m i tte d against ci vi l i an s dur i ngthe M en g i stu a dm i ni st r at i o n. Aye l e , h e rmo th e r, Y e s h ib r g e tB e l i h u , a n d h e rt wo si st er s wer e amongtho se who fl ed Eth i o pi a be f o r e th e E PR D F’s i m m inen t invasion
. Be lihu and A yele’s f ath er, Tsega w A yel e (“ M r. A yel e”) , w er e m em ber s ofthe W or kers’ Party of E th iopia (“W PE ”), w hich w as M en gistu’s po l i ti ca lpa r ty
. M r . Aye l e al so ha d se r ve d as th e Pr es i den t ofthe N ati onalOl ym pic Com m i tte e a nd Sen i orVi ce P re sid en t o f t h e A ss oc iat ion of A fric an N at ion al O lym p ic Comm i tt ee , a s wel la s M i ni st ero fRe g i o na lAf f ai r s dur i ng th e M en gis tu reg im e s in c e 1 98 6. A lth o u g h M r. A ye le d id no t wantthe m i ni st erro l e wi ththe g o ve r nm en t ( i n f ac t, he cr i ed when he l ea r ne d o fhi s appo intm en t) , Pr es i den t M en g i stu a ppo i nt ed M r . Aye l e an d he b el i ev ed th ati fhe re fused i t, he o r hi s f am i l y m ay have f aced punishm ent. 2 One A pri lni ght i n 1991 , w hen A yel e w as 15, herpare nts tol d her and her younge r si ste rs to p ac k thei r thi ngs b ec au se th ey w er e le av in g t h e c o u n t ry be for e t h e re b els i nvaded th e c ap i tal

. A s s he, herm othe r and si ste rs pre pared to depart on a m or ni ng fl i ght t o K enya, herf ather t o l d the m he wo ul d j o i n the m l a t e r, b uth e n e v e rdi d. A yel e, herm othe r and her si ste rs ar ri ved i n K en ya t o a ve r y di ffer en t l i fes ty l e. Be ca us e o fM r . Aye l e’ s pr o m i ne nt posi ti on in the M engi stu g ove rnm ent, the f am i l y had l i ved a pri vi l ege d l i fe in Ethio pia
. They l i ved i n a v i l l a, had m aid s a n d a c h a u f feu r, tra ve led freq u en tly , an d th e g irls4 N o. 08

- 1411
atten d ed private sc hools. I n K en ya, A yele an d her sisters an d m ot h er live d on m on ey se n t b y a fam ily frie n d in Eu ro pe. Bel ih u k ep t the gi rl s s ecl ud ed and tol d them to ne ve rdi sc l o se t o a ny o ne who the ir par en ts wer e. Dur i ng th ei r ti m e in K enya, A yel e cl ai m ed that they w er e m i str eat ed by Ethio pia n i nfi l tr ato rs , and herm othe r w as as k e d t o sh ow h er p as sp or t e ve ry w h er e s h e w en t. In 199 2 , Ay e l e l e ftKe ny a a nd h e a de d t o the Uni t e d S t a tes
. So m eti m e a ftershe l eft, A yel e l earned that her m othe r had b ee n arr es te d i n 1 99 5 b y K en ya n offic er s, w h o A ye le al l ege s were bribed b y Ethi opi an i nfi l tr ato rs that ta r g et ed i ndi vi dual s who ha d b ee n invo l ve d i n the M en gis tu regi m e. A yel e’ s m othe r eve ntual l y was r el ea se d, a nd he rmom a nd s i st er s wentt o Lo ndo n. A yel e arr i ved in the U ni ted Stat es i n Se ptem ber1992 o n an F- 1 vi sa, w hi ch al l owed herto at tend Defi ance Col l ege , w h er e s h e e ve n tu ally e a r n ed a b ac h elo r’s d eg re e in bio log y. W h ile w or kin g p ar t-t im e o n an H -1B vis a, A ye le att ended B al lS tat e Un i ver si ty, wh ere she r ecei ved dual b i o l og y a n d p h ys iolog y m as te r’s d eg re es . In 19 98 , A ye le fi l ed ana sy l um a nd wi thho l di ngo fr emov alpe ti ti o n, w h ich w as d en ied , bu t h er F-1 s ta tu s w as ev en tu ally re i ns t a t e d. Ay e l e fe l lo uto fs t a t us wh e n s he s t opped wo r k i n g i n De c e mb e r 2 0 0 2
. De s p i t e a t t e mpt s t o f i nd empl o y m en t as a n H- 1B vi sa ho l der, Aye l e d i d no t fi nd a j ob oran e m plo yerwh o w oul d peti ti on f orherper m anent r esi dency bas ed on e m plo ym en t. I n M ar ch 200 3, Aye l e re ne wed he ra ppl i ca ti o n fo ra sy l um , wi thho l di ng o fr emov al, a nd pr o te ct i o n un derthe CAT.N o. 08

- 1411 5

A yele can n o t li ve in the U.K. w ith her m other and s is ter s 3 because when her m other ente red En gland in 1995, s he f ail ed to re p o rt A y el e a s h er d a u g h te r. M ea nwhi l e, Aye l e’ s m o th er, Be l i hu, g aine d pe r m an en t st at u s in th e U n ite d K in gd om (“U .K .”) in20 03
. W h ile 3 in K en ya, B elihu had becom e a m em ber of th e A llA m ha ra Pe o pl e ’ s Or g a ni z a t i o n ( “ AAPO” ) , a p o l i t i c a lg r o up o ppo se d t o the EPRDF

- l ed g o ve r nm en t. In Ke ny a, Be l i hu was di sc r ee t ab o uthe ra ct i vi ti es w ith th e g r o up, b ut w h e n s h e m ov ed to th e U .K ., sh e b ec am e m or e o p en ly i nv o l ve d a nd s er ve s as t r ea su r era nd a mem ber o fthe executi ve com m i tte e o fa U
. K
. A A PO bra n ch. In 199 7, Ay e l e j o i ne d a W ashi ng t o n, D. C. b r a nc h o fthe AAPO , ca l l ed th e All Am ha r a Pe o pl e’ s Re l i ef an d De vel o pm en t Asso ci at i o n. Aye l e pr o vi des fi na nc i als uppo r t to the gr oup and w ri tes l ett er s o n b eh alfo fthe gr oup to em bass y o ffi ci al s a nd U ni ted S tat es senat or s. A l though Ayel e, and eve ntual l y herm othe r and si ste rs , adj usted to l i fe in thei r new co untri es, o therm em ber s o f A yele ’s f a m il y w ere not so fortun ate. W he n th ey w ere li ving in K en ya, A yele an d her m oth er and sisters lea rn ed from an au n t t h at aft er th ey h ad fled th eir h om e, the EPR DF tar get ed A yel e’ s f atherand confi scat ed M r . A y e l e ’ s g u n s a n d a r r e s t e d h i m. Mr
. A y e l e w a s i mpri sone d fr om J une 199 1 t o A ugust o r Se ptem ber19 93, du r i ngwh i c h t i me he wa s i nt e r r o g a t e d a nd t o r t ur e d. Eventual l y M r. A yel e was r el eas ed on ba i l, acc or ding to Aye l e, due t o pr es su r e fr o m i nt erna ti o na lc ontac ts he m ad e w h ile w or kin g w it h t h e A fric an N at ion al O lym p ic C om m itt ee an d R ed C ro ss . M r. A ye le w a s n e ve r for m ally6 N o. 08

- 1411

D r. Tegegne is the s tepbrother ofAy el e’ s m other. 4 Pr ofes s or A sratW ol deye s s er ved a s the pr es i dentofthe 5 A A PO and call ed f or a nonviolent, unite d E thi opia. H e was ar re s t ed a nd c onvi c t ed o fs edi t i on. charg ed w i th anycr i m i n al offenses . S i nce hi s r el eas e fro m pri son, he r em ai ns under g ove rnm ent s urvei l l ance, he cannotl eav e th e country, and he has bee n unabl e t o ob ta ina j ob , d es p ite h is e ffor t s t o fin d em p loy m en t. H is extended f am i l y pay s hi s l i vi ng expenses . A yel e’ s uncl e, Dr. N eguss i e Te ge gn e, wh o tes ti fi ed on A yel e’ s be hal fatherr em ova lhear i ng, f aced a f ate sim ilar to A ye le’s fa th er . D r. T eg eg n e s er ve d as a p h ys i- 4 c i a n a ta g o v e r nme nth o s pi t a ldu r i ngthe Men gi stu a dm i ni st r at i o n. W hi l e l i vingi n E th iopi a afte rthe f al lo fthe M en g i stu r eg i m e, Dr
. Te g egne was de ni ed empl o y m en t as a physi ci ana nd was i m pr i so ne d b ec au se o fhi s AA PO m em bersh ip an d his activism i n p roviding m ed ical care to refu ge es in A d d is A b ab a. InSep t e m b er 19 94 , w h ile atten d ing the tri al ofProfessor A srat W oldeye s, Dr. 5 T egegn e and other A A P O a t ten d ees w ere arrested

. Dr. Tege g ne wa s i nc a r c e r a t e d fo ra mo nth a nd e nd ured to rt u re an d int er ro ga tio n s. H e w as arr es te d ag ain in Decem b er 1995. The next yea r, Dr. Tege gne e scaped Ethio pia and w as gr anted as yl um i n the U ni ted S tat es. Dr. Tege gne was notthe onl y o therfam i l y m em ber h ar m ed by th e E th iop ian go v er n m en t. D r. T eg eg n e t es tified th at A ye le’s oth er u n c le, Y igr em ac h ew B elih u , w h o is th e b iolog ica l bro th er of A ye le’s m ot h er , d isa p p ea re d inN o. 08

- 1411 7

Ayel e ex p lain ed i n a n a ffi davi tat t ac he d t o h eras yl um 6 app li cat ion that wi tnes se s rel ated that M r. Beli hu w as ab d u cted b y the E P R D F reg im e’s secret p ol ice. Th e fam ily pr e s umes h e i s de a d. The IJ f ound that al though Ayel e fi l ed h eras yl um appl i c at i on 7 pas tthe one-year de adl i ne fro m the dat e ofhe r en t ry i nt o the U nit ed Stat es , s he w as not barred from fil ing f or as ylum bec a u s e h e r c i r c u ms t a n c e s fe l l w i th i n th e “ e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u mst ances ” ex cepti on pu rs uant to 8 C.F. R
. § 1208. 4( a) ( 5)

. The IJ al s o f ound thatAyel e’s te m p or ar y s t ay i n Ken ya di d not c ons t i t ut e “fi rm r es et t l em en t ” un der 8 C. F. R. § 20 8. 15 , and thus (co n tin u ed ...) Oct o be r1 99 7, ne ve rt o b e he ar d fr om a g ain. Dr
. Te g egne 6 al s o t e s t i fi e d tha t hi s b r o the r, a s c ho o l pr i nc i pa l, was ki l l ed by Orom o nati onal i sts bec ause th e E PRD F- l ed gov er nm ent insti gat ed ani m osi ty aga i nst e thni c Am hara s, and anothe r of D r. Tege gne’ s fri ends w as ki l l ed after the g o v e r nme nta c c us e d h i m o f b e i ng pa r to fa r e b e lg r o up . Afte rr ev i ewi ngdo cument ary e vi den ce a nd he ar i ng tes ti m ony fro m A yel e an d D r. Tege gne during a re m ova l he aring he ld on A ug us t 6, 2003 , th e IJ d en ied A yele’s re n ew ed as ylu m , w ith h old in g of re m ov al a n d C A T ap p lica ti o n in a de cisio n da te d J une 2 9, 2 00 6. The IJ f o und both A yel e a n d her uncle to be cre dibl e, but deter m i ned that A yel e di d not s uffi ci entl y dem onst ra te th at h erfear offuture perse cuti on wa s obj ecti vel y r eas onabl e g i ven th e cur r en t co unt r y c o ndi ti o ns . On J an ua r y 2 3, 2 00 8, the BI A affi r m ed, wi th o uto pi ni o n, the IJ’ s dec i si o n a nd al l owed A yel e t o vol untari l y depar t the U ni ted S tat es. Aye l e pet i ti o ns f or r ev i ew o fthe BI A dec i si o n o r der i ng h er rem ov al. 78 N o. 08

- 1411

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 7 she w as no t ba rred fro m seek ing asy lum in the U nited States. II. A N A L Y S IS W e r ev i ew di r ec tly the IJ ’ s dec i si o n whe r e, a s he r e, the BI A summ ar i l y a ffi rm s the de ci si o n o fthe IJ wi th o ut o pi ni o n. B a lliu v . Go nz a les , 467 F.3d 609 , 6 12 (7th C ir. 2006). O u r re vie w is on e o f d efe re n c e. M uso lla ri v . M uk a sey, 54 5 F
. 3d 50 5, 5 08 ( 7th Ci r. 2 008). W e r ev i ew t o s ee i fthe “d et er m in at ion w as su p p or te d by rea so n ab le, su b st an tia l, and probat i ve evi dence on the r eco rd co nsi de re d as a w hole .” O ga yo nn e v. M uk a sey, 530 F.3d 514 , 519 (7th C ir. 20 08 ) (i nt erna lc i ta ti o n a nd qu o ta ti o n mar k s o m i tt ed)

. To re ver se a BI A deci si on, the peti ti onerm ust s h ow that th e ev i den ce co m pel s, no t m er ely su ppo r ts , a di ffer en t re su lt. Id.

A . A sylu m claim The I m m i gr ati on a nd N ati onal i ty A ct ( “I N A ”) defi nes a “r efu gee ” a s s om eone wh o i s unabl e o r unw i l l i ng to retu rn to he r hom eland “beca u s e of pe rsecu tion or a w el l

- f ounded fearo fper secuti on o n acco unt ofr ace, re l i gion , nati onal i ty, m em ber shi p i n a par ti cul arso ci al gr oup, o r pol i ti calo pini on. ” See8 U
. S. C

. § 1101 (a)( 42)(A ); s e eal s o M us ol l a ri, 5 45 F. 3d at 508 ( “The A tto rneyGenera l ha s d iscretion t o g ran t asylum to an ali en ‘r efugee

. ’ ”). Refugee sta tus can be prove n thro ugh past perse cuti on o r fea r of fu tu re p er se c u tio n . Id. An appl icant w ho de m o ns t r a t e s p a s tp e r s e c ut i o n i s e nt i t l e d t o a r e b ut t ab l e p r e s u mp-N o. 08

- 1411 9 ti on o ffuture perse cuti on. I ng m a nto ro v . M uk a sey, 55 0 F. 3 d 6 4 6 , 6 4 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )

. W i tho ut e v i de nc e o fpast p er se c u tio n, an ap p lica n t m u st d em on st ra te a w ellfou n d ed fea r of fu tu re p er se c u tio n . Id. at 65 0- 51

. The appli cant m ust s ati sfy b oth the obj ecti ve and subj ec ti ve p ro n gs of th e w ell-fo u n d ed fea r st an d ar d

. Id. at 651. A ye le a d m its th at th e g ov er n m en t n ev er p er so n ally per se cut ed he r, s o t o s ucc ee d o n h era sy l um p etiti o n s he m us t sh o w a we l l

- f ou nd ed fea ro ffutur e per se cut i o n. Based on Ayel e’ s cr edibl e t est i m ony, the IJ f ound that Aye l e establ i sh ed a su bj ec ti ve fea ro ffutur e per se cut i o n. T h u s, on ly th e o bj ec tiv e c om p on en t re m ain s a t is su e. See B o la nte v . M uk a sey, 5 3 9 F
. 3 d 7 9 0 , 7 9 4 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( r e v i e wi ngc o ur ts ho uld noto r di na r i l y di s t urb c r e dib i l i t y fi nd

i ng )

. Whi l e the s ubj e c t i v e c o mpo ne nto ft e n dep e nd s upo n the a ppl i ca nt ’ s o wn cr edibi l i tya nd t est i m o ny, the obj ective pr o ngr equi r es e vi den ce tha t th er e i s a r ea so nab l e pr o babi l i tytha t th e appl i ca nt“ wi l lb e singl ed o ut i nd i vi du al l y forp er secuti on” orthat“there i s a patte rn o r pract i ce o fp er secuti on o fan i denti fi abl e g ro up , to wh i ch th e [ appl i ca nt ] de m ons trat es he b el o ng s, s uchtha t th e [ appli cant’ s] feari s r eas onabl e. ” C apric v. A shcroft, 35 5 F.3d 107 5, 1085 ( 7th C ir. 2 004) (i nt erna l citations om itted ). T o b e o bj ec tiv ely rea so n ab le, an a p p lica n t m u st s h ow on ly th at perse cuti on i s a “r eas onabl e pos sibi l i ty, ” no t that p er se c u tio n is d efin ite or ev en likely

. See A hm ed v. Ashcroft, 34 8 F .3d 61 1, 61 8 (7t h C ir. 20 03 ); see also K llo k o qi v. G o nz a les , 439 F. 3d 336, 34 5 ( 7th C i r. 20 05) ( “The appli cant m ay est abl i sh a re aso nabl e pos sibi l i ty offuture perse cuti on by sh o wi n g th a t th e r e i s e v e n a 1 0 p e r c e n t c h a n c e th a the wi l lb e s h o t, t o r t ur ed , o ro th e r wi s e p e r s e c u t e d

. ” )

. An10 N o. 08

- 1411 asy l um appli cant m ust s how a n exus betw een he r fearo f fu tu re per secuti on a nd o ne o fthe fi ve prot ecte d gro und s: ra ce, r el i gion , nati onal i ty, m em ber shi p i n a par ti cul ar so c ial gr ou p , or p olit ica l op in ion
. To r res v. M uk a sey, 55 1 F.3 d 61 6, 62 9 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); see a l so 8 U. S

. C. § 1101 (a)( 42)(A ). Ay e l e p r e s e n t s th r e e g r o u n d s f o rh e ra s y l u m c l a i m: ( 1) he rAm ha r a ethni ci ty ; ( 2) he ri nv o l ve m ent in the A A PO p ol i ti calo rg an i zati on; and ( 3) herf am i l y a s a soc i algr oup. Fi rst, she c onte nd s that be cause she i s a n ethni c Am hara, she fea rs future perse cuti on be cause of the c urr ent g ove rnm en t’s disdai n f orA m hara peopl e. The IJ deni ed A yel e’ s e thni ci ty cl ai m bas ed on S tat e D ep ar tm en t C ou n tr y R ep or ts d em on st ra ti n g t h at et h n ic A m h ar as cu rre n tly th riv e in E t h iop ia a n d sp ec ifica lly poi nted to a 1997C ountr y Report i nd i cating that Am hara s ser ve i n the executi ve cabi net o fthe curr ent g ove rnm ent. Ay e l e a r g ue s tha ta l tho ugh memb e r s o fthe c urr e nta dm in ist r at ion h av e A m h ar ic n am es , th ey are n otet h n ic A m ha ras. D uring the rem oval proc eed ings, A yele’s un cle , Dr. Tegeg ne exp lai ne d that ethn ic A m ha ras are ea sily id en tifie d ba se d on th eir a c c en t. Se c on d , A ye le m ai ntai ns thatshe fear s per secuti on b as ed on her po l i ti ca lo pi ni o n b ec au se i fs he r etur ne d to Ethi o pi a sh e woul d c o nt i nue he ri nv o l vem entwi ththe AA PO a nd w oul d not re m ain si l ent. In hi s deci si on, the IJ poi nted to C ou nt ry Rep orts ind icating t h a t A A PO m em bers ar e no t be i ng ta rg ete d by the EPRD F- l ed go ver nm ent. W e ca nnot s ay that the r eco rd co m pel s the co nclu sio n that A yel e’ s fea r of future perse cuti on o n the acco unt ofN o. 08

- 1411 11 her ethni ci ty orpol i ti calopini on is obj ecti vel y r eas onabl e. The IJ point ed t o c as e l aw a nd Co unt r y Re po r ts e xpl aini ngwhy he be l i ev ed Aye l e’ s fea ro ffutur e per se cuti on ba sed o n herethnici ty and pol i ti c al op ini on was unfo un de d. He e xp l a i ne d tha tAmha r a s s e r v e i n gov er nm ent posi ti ons and that a s l ong as pol i ti calo pp osi ti on gr oups denounce vi ol ence, th e g ove rnm ent wil lnot harm them

. H e furtherco ncl ud ed tha t A yel e had not pr o ve n s h e wi l l b e s i n g l e d o u t fr o m o th e r Amh a r a s a nd A A P O m em b er s. See C ha tta v. M uk a sey, 52 3 F
. 3d 748, 75 2 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ). Th e IJ p ro vid ed rea so n ed an aly sis th at is supp or ted bysubst anti alev i dence. See M edhin v. Ashcroft, 3 5 0 F
. 3 d 6 8 5 , 6 9 0

- 9 1 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 )

. T h e r e f o r e , we cannot re ver se the BI A ’ s deci si on o n thes e g ro und s. Aye l e’ s ar g um en t th ats he may face pe r se cut i o n i fs he re turns to Ethio pia because of her f am i l y ti es f ares be tt er th an h er oth er tw o gr ou n d s . A ye le m ad e itap p ar en t in he ra sy l um a ppl i ca ti o n a nd in h era tt o r ne y ’ s cl o sing ar gum ent b ef or e the IJ thatshe fear ed pers ecuti on o n acc ou nt of th e treatm en t of he r f am il y and her fam il y’s prom i nent posi ti on in the M engi stu r egi m e. N on et h ele ss th e IJ faile d to fu lly an aly ze A ye le’s c laim that she m ay fa c e perse cuti on o n acco unt ofherf am i l i al tie s. E ve n th e g ov er n m e n t co n c ed es th at th e IJ w h olly f ai l ed to disc uss whether a f am i l y c an co nsti tute a s oci al grou p . T h e only referen ce to A yele’s f am il y i n th e IJ’ s anal ysi s was the f ol l owing: I n additi on, i fthe

. . . go ver nm ent desi re d t o tar get th e resp ond en t beca us e she i s the da ug ht e r o f a f or m erm i ni ste r i n the M engi stu re gi m e, o r because12 N o. 08

- 1411 sh e i s Am ha r a, i t w ou ld sta nd t o r ea so n tha t th e g o ve r nm en t woul d a l so seek to pe r se cut e th e r es po n d e n t ’ s fa th e r . Ho we v e r, b a s e d o n the r es po nd en t’s ow n te st im on y, sin c e h er fat h er ’s re lea se in 1993 , h e h as no t been ph ysicall y harm ed , rather, onl y pla ced und er surve i l l ance. Thu s, the f act that th e re sp on d en t’s fat h er h as be en livin g in E th iop ia re l ati vel y unharm ed f or ove r a decade after her departure si gni fi cantl y di m i ni shes her cl ai m o f futur e per se cut i o n. This curso ryexpl anati on ca uses us to questi on wh ether the IJ fully c onsi dered Ayel e’ s f am i l i alti es cl aim
. See C h i t a y - P i r i rv. INS , 16 9 F
. 3d 1079 , 10 81 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) (re m an d req u ire d be c au se u n c lea r w h et h er cla im fu lly und er sto od oranal yze d ). I nd eed, i t s eem s that the IJ was m er el y using the tr eat m ent o fA yel e’s fat her to show th at s he would notbe si ngl ed out because o fher et h n icit y or p olit ica l op in ion, rath er th an as an an aly sis ofwh eth er A yele would f ace perse cuti on ba sed o n her f am i l y’ s hi sto ry . There i s no r efere n c e i n the IJ ’ s o pini on to A yel e’ s fear s that s he wil lbe speci fi cal l y t ar get ed be ca us e he rmothe r, a po l i ti ca lact i vi st, l i ve s ab r o ad an d o u t side of th e E PR D F-l ed govern m en t’s reach

. M oreover, despit e fi nd i ng Ay ele and heruncl e cr edibl e, the IJ f ai l ed to dis cuss the past tr eat m ent o fA yel e’ s tw o uncle s. See So sno vsk a ia v. G o nz a les , 42 1 F. 3d 589, 59 3- 94 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( deter m i ni ng tha t the IJ er ro neously f ai l ed to di scuss argu m en ts an d eviden ce p resen ted ). Ou r ci rcui t r eco gni zes a f am i l y a s a co gni zabl e s oci al gr ou p u n d er th e IN A , see To rres , 551 F. 3d at 629 ( ci ti ng IlievN o. 08

- 1411 13

The gove rn m en t as s er t s thatAyel e has a l ar ge f am i l y l i vi ng 8 i n Ethi opia u nhar m ed, whi c h, i tar gue s , be l i es Ayel e’ s c ont en t i on thats he wil l be t ar ge t ed be c aus e ofhe r f am i l y t i es . The r e c o r d s h o ws th a to n l y Mr
. Ay e l e ’ s s t e p moth e r a n d u n k n o wn m em b ers of B e l i h u ’s f am ily rem ain in E thio p ia. In her rep ly brief, A yele explai ns she only know s f or cer tain that M r. Ay el e’ s st epm other rem ains i n Ethiopia. v . INS , 12 7 F
. 3d 638, 64 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) ) , as do o ur s i ste r c i r c u i ts
. See, e.g., Lopez-Soto v. A shcroft, 3 8 3 F
. 3 d 2 2 8 , 23 5 (4th C ir. 2004); JieLin v. A shcroft, 37 7 F
. 3d 1014, 10 28 ( 9th Cir

. 20 04); G e b r e mi c h a e l v . INS , 10 F. 3d 28, 36 ( 1stCi r. 19 93) ( “There can, i n f act, be no pl ai ner exam ple o fa soc i al gr o u p ba se d on co m m on , i d en tifia b le a n d im m u ta b le ch ar ac te r i st i cs tha n th at o fthe nuc l ea rf ami l y . ”)

. W i th o ut e v e n a me n t i o n o fth i s p r i n c i p l e i n th e IJ ’ s o p i n i o n, we ca nno t k no w f o rc er ta i n th at he a ss es se d thi s g r o und for A ye le’s as ylu m req u es t. SeeCh it ay-P ir ir, 16 9 F
. 3d at 1081

. E ve ry m em b er of A y e le’s im m ed iat e fa m ily eit h er is in ex i l e, ha s di sa p pea r ed, ha s be eni m pr i so ne d a nd tor ture d, or is u nd erhouse ar re st. H erf atherwas a 8 prom i nent m em bero fthe M engi stu r egim e, an d her m othe r i s a n A A PO acti vi st. Dur in g her re m ova lpro c e e d i n g s , A y e l e ’ s u n c l e t e s t i fi e d th a th e rf a mi l y n a me w as re cogni zabl e a nd thatpeopl e would r eal i ze her f athe rwas a min i st er in th e M en g i stu a dm i ni st r at i o n. H ermothe r, a nd he runc l e who was i m pr i so ne d a nd to r tu r ed ba se d o n h i s po l i ti ca la ct i vi sm, a r e o ut si de o fthe re ac h of th e g ov er n m en t, m ak in g A ye le p ar tic u lar ly vul nerabl e. See M em a v. G o n z a l es , 474 F
. 3d 412, 41 7 ( 7th14 N o. 08

- 1411 Cir

. 20 07) ( “Oftti m es p ersecuto rs ta rg et chi l dren o f po l i ti ca l di ss i den ts no t be ca us e th ey ha ve i m p ut ed the par en ts ’ po l i ti ca lo p inio n t o the c hi l dr en, b uta s a m ea ns ofhar ass i ng, i nti m i dati ng, and i nfluenci ng the behav i or of the parent. ”)

. The IJ f ai l ed to disc uss any ofth is e vid e n c e i n l i g h to fA y e l e ’ s c l a i m. A s note d ea r l i er, an as y l um appl i ca nt ca n es tabl i sha w ell -f ou nd ed fear of p ersecu tion by p rov in g eith er a pat t e r n o r pr a c t i c e o f pe r s e c ut i o n o f a s o c i a l g r o up , o f w hi ch the applica n t has pro ven s he i s a m em ber, o r by proving the appli cant w i l l be si ngl ed ou t perso nal l y. 8 C. F. R. § 1208

. 13(b) ( 2) ( i i i )

. The r egul ati on s tat es: I n eva l uati ng wh etherthe appli cant has s ustained the b urden ofpro vi n g th at he o r she has a wel l

- f o unde d fearo fpe r se cut i o n, the a sy l um o ffi ce ro ri m m i g r at i o n j udg e sh all n ot r equi r e th e appli cant to p ro vide ev i dence thatther e i s a r eas o nab l e p o s s ib i l i t y h e o rs he wo ul d b e s i ngl ed ou t ind ivi d ua ll y for p ersecu tion if : (A ) T h e a p p lica n t e st ab lish es th at th er e is a p at tern orprac ti ce in hi s o r her countr y . . . of per secuti on o fa gr oup of per so ns s i m i l ar l y si tu at ed to the a ppl i ca nt on a ccount ofr ace, r el i gi on, nati onal i ty, m em ber shi p i n a parti cul arso ci algr oup, o r po l i ti ca lo pi ni o n; a nd ( B) The a pp l ica n t e stabl i shes hi s o r her o wn i nc l us i o n in, a nd i den ti fi ca ti o n wi th, such gr oup of perso ns such that hi s o r h er fea r of p er se c u tio n u p o n ret u rn is re aso nabl e.N o. 08

- 1411 15

T he go v ern m en t’ s con ten tion tha t A y ele d id no t fu lly exh au st 9 he r c l ai m tha t h er f am i l y s uffer ed a pat t er n o r pra c t i c e of pe r s e c ut i on i s no t pe r s ua s i ve . Th r ou gh ou t he r a s ylum a pp lication an d in he r ap p eal to the B IA , A y e le rep eate d ly d isc us s es the t re at m en tofhe r f am i l y m em ber s i n the pas tan d h e r fe a r th a t sh e m a y fa c e p e r se c u t i o n b e c a u se o fh e r f a m i l y ’s hi s t or y. 8 C

. F. R. § 1208

. 13(b) ( 2) ( i i i )

. A l though i t i s no t e nt ire ly cl ea r th at th e IJ ev en co ns i der ed Aye l e’ s so ci al g r o up cl ai m , i fhe di d, i t s ee m s h e di d preci sel y what thi s r egu l a t ion ins tr u c ts an IJ n otto d o. See B a nk s v. G o nz a les , 45 3 F.3 d 44 9, 45 2 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ). Th at is, th e IJ req u ire d A ye le to p ro ve t h a t s h e w ou ld be sin gle d ou t in d ivid u ally w i thout deci ding w hetherA yel e pr ove d a patte rn o r pr a c t i c e o fp e r s e c ut i o n o fh e rs o c i a lg r o up . 9 A notherpro bl em with the IJ ’ s asse ssm ent i s that despi te cre dit i ng Ayel e and heruncl e’ s t est i m ony, he c hara cte riz ed A ye le’s fat h er as “re lat ive ly u n h ar m ed .” T h e IJ ex p lain ed th at M r. A ye le h a d n otbe en p h ys ica lly harm ed si nc e h is rel eas e fro m pri son, but w as pla ced m er ely u n d er su rv eilla n c e. T h i s r ea so n in g is p ro b lem at ic because i t f ai l s t o re cogni ze that surve i l l an c e has bee n re cogni zed as a possibl e for m of perse cuti on i n thi s ci rcui t, se e, e . g., D iall o v. A shcroft, 381 F.3d 687, 697 (7th C ir. 2004), an d t h a t th is ci rcu it has ne ver requ ired p hy sical harm to d em on st ra te p er se c u tio n, s e eB egz a t o w s k iv . INS , 27 8 F. 3d 665, 67 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( rej ecting BI A ’ s a tte m pt “to i m pose on a sylum appli cants the a dd i ti onalburden o f est abl i shi ng perm anent o r ser i ous inj uri es as a r esul t o f their p er secuti on”)

. M or eov er, the IJ i gnor ed evi dence16 N o. 08

- 1411 that M r. A yel e was unabl e t o w or k b ecause o fhi s for m er affilia tio n w i t h t h e M en gis tu reg im e, see B o r c a v . INS , 77 F. 3d 210, 21 6 (7 th Ci r. 19 96) ( del iber ate i m posi ti on o f substa nti aleco nom i c di sadvantag e m ay am ount t o perse cuti on) , and that he i s f orbi dd en fro m l eaving the co untry. C f

. To p t c h e v v . INS , 2 95 F.3d 714, 722 (7th C ir. 2002) (dete rm in in g n o p os sib ility of fu tu re p er se c u tio n p ar tly be ca us e g o ve r nm en t ha d no t i nt er fer ed wi tha pp li ca nt leaving cou nt ry). F i na l l y, the IJ r el i ed he av i l y o n Co unt r y Re po r ts to de ny al lo fAye l e’ s cl ai m s, whi chi n a nd o fi ts el fg i ve s us c o nce r n. Se e, e . g., N iam v. Ashcroft, 354 F .3 d 6 52, 658 ( 7th Cir. 20 04 ) (cr iti c i z i n g i m m i g r a t ion co u rt ’s “ c h ro n ic ove rr eliance ” o n Country Report s)

. To the exte nt that th e IJ r e l i e d o n th e r e po r t s t o a s s e s s A y e l e ’ s f a mi l y c l a i m, th i s r el i an ce i s errone o us b ec au se the IJ c r edi te d the te st i m o ny of A y el e an d he runc l e, whi chpr o vi des the onl y foundati on f orwh i ch one co uld dete rm i ne that A yel e f aced the poss ibi l i ty of p er secuti on be cause ofher f am i l y t i es. Se e B ace v. A shcroft, 352 F .3d 11 33, 11 39 ( 7th Cir

. 20 03) ( “[ I ] t would be im p roper to fi nd thata w i tness’ s t est i m ony about speci fi c ev ents coul d be co ntra
d ict ed by a g en er aliz ed Sta te D ep ar tm en t re p or t b ro ad ly disc ussi ngc o nd i t i o ns i n the appli cant’ s co untry ofo ri gi n. ”) ( i nter nalquotat ion m ar ks om i tte d). CountryRepor ts m ay inform a n IJ i n de term ining th e treatm en t of a p articular p oli tical organ ization or eth nic grou p , bu t C ou nt ry Rep ort s wi l lr ar ely a i d the IJ i n a na l y zingthe uni que p os itio n of a fam ily as a s oc ial gr ou p . S e eG a l i n a v . INS , 21 3 F. 3d 955, 95 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) (“[co untry] r epor ts ar e br i ef a nd g e n e r a l, a n d ma y f a i lt o i d e n t i fy s p e c i fi c , p e r h a psN o. 08

- 1411 17 l o ca l, da ng er s to pa r ti cul ar, pe r haps o bs cur e, i ndi vi duals .”). A ye le’s cr ed ible te st im on y s h ou ld h av e b ee n su ffici ent e vi dence to dem onst ra te the hi sto ri caltr eat m ent o f her f am i l y a nd herfearthatshe w ou ld f ace perse cuti on on acc ount of her f am i l y i f she re turned to Ethio pia
. “It is wel l- es tabl i sh ed th atthe c r edibl e te st i m o ny o fa n a l i en, wi th o utmor e, may b e s uffi ci en t to s us ta i n a n a sy l um cl ai m . ” Kornie

je w v. Ashcroft, 3 7 1 F. 3d 377, 382 (7th Cir. 20 04 ); s e eal s o Ikam a- O b am b iv. Gonzal es , 4 70 F. 3d 720, 72 5 (7th C ir. 2006). Buti n a ddi ti o n t o th e cr edibl e te st i m o ny o fAye l e an d h e ru n c l e , th e r e c o r d a l s o c o n t a i n e d e v i d e n c e , i n c l udi ng po r ti o ns o fthe c i te d Co unt r y Re po r ts , c o r r o bo r at i ng A yel e’s a ssert i ons about the c urr ent t re atm ent o fher f atherbythe gov er nm en t. SeeGhebre m edhin v. Ashcroft, 38 5 F
. 3d 11 16 , 1 11 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) ( dec i di ngtha t th e hi st o r y o fpe r se cut i o n det ai l ed i n the Co unt r y Re po r t an d th e i ns tanc es o fmis tr ea tmenti den ti fi ed bythe a sy l um ap p lica n t l ea d s t o th e c on c lu sio n th at n o re as on ab le fac tfin d er aft er h av in g c re d ite d h i s t es tim on y c ou ld th enfi nd no wel l

- f o unde d fea roffutur e per se cut i o n)

. The IJ s el ec ti ve l y c ho se t o hi g hl i g htc er ta i n po r ti o ns o fthe C ou nt ry Rep orts, w hile i gn oring othe r portions that w ere f av o r ab l e to Aye l e. F o re xa m ple, w he n di sc us singthe 2005 CountryRepor t, the IJ m enti oned the “cr edibl e” el ecti ons i n Ethio pia i n 200 5, but i gnor ed i nfo rm ati on concer ni ng the c o nt i nu e d wi r e t a p s ur v e i l l a nc e o f Ethio pia n pol i ti calparty l eader s bythe gov er nm ent. I fA yel e a nd heruncl e’ s s tory a bout the t re atm ent o f he r f am il y m e m b ers w as cred ited, and furt he r cor-18 N o. 08

- 1411

ro b or at ed by th e C ou n tr y R ep or t, it is no t clea r w h y th e IJ d et er m in e d t h at A ye le d oe s n oth av e a n ob j ec tiv ely re aso nabl e fearo fper se c uti on ba sed o n herf am i l i alti es. E ve n m or e fu n d am en ta lly, th ou g h , th e IJ d id n otsp ec ifical l y a dd re ss w heth er A yel e’ s f am i l y i s a part i cul ar so ci algroup. Be ca us e o fthi s o m i ss i o n, a r emand f o rthe B IA to c on sid er th is i ss u e i s n ec es sa ry . Se eGonzal e s v. Thom as , 54 7 U. S

. 18 3, 18 6- 88 ( 20 06 ) ( per cur i am ) ( r emand re q u ire d for B IA to c o n s i d er w h et h er ap p lica n t’s fam ily “p resen ts t h e k in d of kinsh ip ties that cons titute a particular socia l grou p ”) ( intern al qu otation m arks om itted ). On r em and, the BIA s houl d c onsi der th e c um ula ti ve effe c t of all of th e ha rd sh ip s an d tr ea tm en t to w h ich A ye le an d h er fa m i ly h av e b ee n su bj ec te d . Th e B IA sh ou ld co ns i derthe f o r m err o l e o fAye l e’ s par en ts i n the M en g i stu r eg i m e, the pa stt r ea tmento fhe rp ar en ts , a nd h er u n c les , an d th e c u rre n t t re at m e n t o f h er fath er . See Z ha ng v. G o nz a les , 408 F.3d 12 39 , 124 9 (9 th C ir. 2 0 05 ) (IJ sh ou ld n otev alu at e e ve n ts in is ola tio n, bu t ra th er th eir cu m ulative im p act).

B. W i t hh ol ding o fr em ova l and CA T r el i ef An appl i ca ntse ek i ngw i thho l di ngofre m o va lunderthe I N A m us t d em ons trate a “clea r p robab il ity” offut ure per se cu tion bas ed on the “ al i en ’ s r ac e, r el i g i o n, nati onal i ty, m em ber shi p i n a par ti cul arso ci algr oup or p olit ica l op in ion .” 8 U .S .C . § 12 31 (b )(3) (A ); s e eKhan v. Filip , 55 4 F
. 3d 681, 69 0 ( 7th C ir. 20 09)

. A pp l i cants seeking r e lie f un d er the C A T m us t show that i t is “m ore like ly th an n o t ” t h a t t h ey w ill be t or tu re d if re m ov ed . 8N o. 08

- 1411 19 C .F.R . § 12 08 .16 (c )(2) ; see Ra ph eal v. M uk a sey, 533 F. 3d 521, 52 6- 27( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)

. Bo tht es ts a ppl y a mor e st r i ng en t st an d ar d th an th a t o ft h e a sy lu m inq u iry
. Se eSe l i m iv. A shcroft, 360 F.3d 736 , 741 (7th C ir. 2004). T h e IJ d e n i e d Ay e l e ’ s wi th ho l d i n go fr e mo v a la n d C AT cl aim s ba sed o n hi s dete rm i nati on that s he had not sat i sfi ed herburden o fes tabl i shi ng tha t s he qualifi ed f or asy l um . Because w e g ra nt herpeti ti on t o re vi ew her asy l um deni al, we need not re ach herwithh old i ng o f re m ov al or C A T cla im s. O n rem an d , th e B IA sh ou ld re vi ew thes e cl ai m s a s i t r eco nsi ders the adm i ni str ati ve re c or d

. See G o m es v. G o n z a l es , 473 F.3d 746 , 757 (7th C ir. 2007 ).

C . Jud icial n otice oft h e 2005 an d 2007 C ou n try R ep ort s F i n a l l y, w e n o t e th a t A y e l e , i n a n e ff o r t t o r e fu t e s o me of the argu m en ts raised by the govern m en t in i ts brief, pr e s e nt e d a s up pl e men t a la pp e nd i x wi th he rr e pl y br i ef an d r eque st ed we t ak e j udi ci aln otice ofthe e xhibi ts
. The su p p lem en tal app en d ix i nc lud ed : ( 1) a 200 5 C ou nt ry Report; ( 2) a 2006 A m nestyInter nati onalr epor t; ( 3) a 2007 Country Report; and ( 4) 20 08 testi m ony by an A m nesty I nter nati onal advocacy dir ecto r. The gov er nm ent m ove d to s tr i k e th es e m aterial s as e xt r a- r ec o r d e vi den ce , c o ntendi ng tha t Ayel e co uld instea d m ove to r eopen her case bas ed on chang ed condi ti ons and t h at s h e has w ai ved ornotfully e xhausted so m e o fherar gum ents20 N o. 08

- 1411

A yele of fered the Co untry R eports as evidence ofthe hum an 10 ri ght s abus es thatc onti nu e to occ ur i n Ethi opi a, a pos i t i on s he has m aint ained s ince the i nit ial fil ing ofher asyl um app li cat i on, w hi c h m e a ns th e ar gu m e nti s no tw a i ve d or un e x ha us t e d. T o the e xt en tthatAyel e re l i es onthe Count ry Repor t s an d the Am ne s t y I nt er nat i ona l m at er i al s t o e xpl ai n the var i ous politic al opp osi ti on group s, w e need not c onsi der them because w e h a ve affir m ed the i m m igrat ion c ourt’ s determ inat i o n o fh e r p o l i t i c a l c l a i m. b e c a u s e s h e d i d n o tr a i s e th e m in h e ro p e n i n gb r i e f

. We 10 do not agr ee, and there f or e, w e tak e j ud i ci al not ice o f th e C ou n tr y R ep or ts a n d inc lu d e t h em in t h e a n aly sis o fth i s c a s e f o rth e r e a s o n s e x p l a i n e d b e l o w. The IJ c i te d the 2 00 5 Cou nt r y Re po r t i n h i s dec i si o n, b ut t he 20 0 5 r e p o r ti s n o tp a r to fth e a d mi n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d. B e c a u s e th e IJ r e l i e d o n th e r e p o r ti n i t s d e c i s i o n, we to ok j u d icia l no tic e o f th e 200 5 re p or t. S e eNw a o k o l o v . INS , 314 F. 3d 303, 30 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( tak i ng j u d icia l not i ce o f th e co unt r y r epo r ts o n cur r en t co unt ry cond i ti o ns cr uci alto the deci si o n)

. W e al so t o o kj udi ci alno ti ce o fthe 20 07Co unt r y Repor t be ca us e i t pr o vi des the mos t r ec en t e v i d e nc e o fth e c u r r e n tc o u n t r y c o n d i t i o n s a tth e t i me of A ye le’s ap p ea l. See, e.g ., L ha nz o m v. G o nz a les , 43 0 F
. 3d 83 3, 8 48 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)

. Al th o ug h the 2 00 7 Cou ntry Re po r twa s n o tp a r to fthe r e c o r d b e l o w, we s t i l lm ay ta ke j u d icia l n ot ice of it. See Kebe v. G o nz a les , 47 3 F
. 3d 855, 85 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( ta k i ngj udi ci alno ti ce o fmos t r ec en t Country Reportsubm i tte d w i th appel l ate br i ef, al though no t su bmi tt ed wi tha ppl i ca nt ’ s m o ti o n to r eo pen )

. The 2005 and 200 7 C ou ntryRepor ts w er e r el evantto wh etherN o. 08

- 1411 21 A yel e’ s fearo ffuture pe rs ecuti on i s r eas onabl e ba sed o n th e c u r r e n t c o n d i t i o n s i n E th i o p i a , wh i c h f o r m ed th e basi s o fthe IJ ’ s dec i si o n. Se ei d. ( dir ecting BI A to co nsi der m ostr ecentco untry re porti nd i cating that the EPR DFl ed g o ve r nm en t ha s be co m e m o r e ag g r es si ve i n c r ac k i ng dow n on o pp osi ti on pro testor s s i nce the M ay 2005 el ecti ons ). W e di d not co nsi der the A m nestyInter nati onal rep ort an d te stim ony becau se th ose d ocu m en ts w ere su bmi tt ed to us i n s uppo r t o fAye l e’ s po l i tic alc l ai m , a nd w e found the IJ ’ s a nalys is of that cl ai m to be supp or ted bys ubs ta nt i alev i den ce s o the r e was no ne ed to c o ns i d e rth e m.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Therefor e, we G RANT Ay e l e ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i ew , we V ACATE the BI A deci s i o n, a nd R EMA ND to the BIA fo r fur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

5- 4- 09