Pursuant to Fede ral Rule of A ppellate Proc edure 43(c) (2), c urre nt Attorney Gene ral 1 Mic ha e l B . M uk a se y

is a uto matic a lly

su bs tit ute d f or fo rm e r A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l A lbe rt o R. Gonzales as the r espondent in this case
. The Hon. John Gleeson, United States District Judge f or the Ea stern District of N ew 2 York, sitting by

desig nation. 06-4 046 -ag Al iba sic v . Mu k as ey

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT

__________ August Term, 2007 Argued: Marc h 28, 2008 Dec ided: October 17, 2008
Docke t No. 06-4046-a g

__________

________________________________________________________ B AJRA M A L I B ASI C, Petitioner,

-v- M IC H A E L B
. M U K

A S E Y , A T T O R

N E Y G E N E RA L, 1 Re sp on de nt.

________________________________________________________ POOL ER and HAL L , Circuit J udg es, and G L EESON, District J udg e. 22

After an I J found Petitioner, an Alba nian Muslim, credible a

nd elig ible for a sylum based on the petitioner’s te stimony of past per secution and othe r information drawn fr om the 2004 Countr y Re po rt , th e Go ve rnme nt a pp e a le d. Th e B I A v a c a te d th e g ra nt o f a sylum

ba se d o n it s revie w of the 2004 Country Report and r emande d to the I J to consider “ any available relief including voluntar

y depar ture.” We have jurisdiction to revie w the B I A’s orde r and c onclude the BIA provided insuff

icient re asoning and did not demonstrate that its decision is based on substantial evidence . We GRANT the petition for r eview, V ACATE the de cision of the B I A and REM AN D f

or fu rt he r p ro c e e din g s.

_________

MI CHAEL

P. DiRAI MONDO ( Mariala ina L . Masi, Mary Eliz abeth De lli-Pi zz i, and Stacy A. Huber , on the brief

), DiRaimondo & Masi, L L P, Melvill e, NY, f or Petitioner. P. MI CHAEL

TRUMAN, Tria l Attorney , Offic e of I mmigration L itigation (Miche lle Gorde n L aTour, A ssistant Direc tor, R. Alexander Goring , Trial Attorne y , Peter D. Ke isl e r, Ac tin g Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l, o n th e br ie f) , U .S. De pa rtme nt o f Jus tic e , Wa sh ing ton , D .C. , f or Re sp on de nt.
POOL ER, Circuit J udg e: We are asked on this appe al to revie w the August 3, 2006, decision of the B oard of I mmigration Appeals (“ the B I A”) which vac ated the D ece mber 13, 2004, ora l decision of I mmi g ratio n Jud g e Marg are t Mc Manu s ( “ the I J”) , o f t he Un ite d St a te s Immi g ratio n Co ur t, g rantingBa

jram Alibasic’ s application for asylum under Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality

Act (“ I NA”) , 8 U.S.C. S ection 1158. In re A libasic, No. A77 542 877 (B I A Aug . 3, 2006), vac ating , No. A77 542 877 (Immig. Ct. New Y ork City Dec . 13, 2004). In light of the Gover nment’s motion to dis miss Alibasic’s petition for revie w, howeve r, we must first consider whether we ha ve jurisdiction to reviewthe B I A’s dec ision.Th e c ours e of e ve nts in t

he B a lka ns ov e r t he la st t wo de c a de s is imp os sib le to 3 summarize usefully , but for the pur poses of this appea l, cer

tain chang es in political boundaries and nomenc lature should be bor ne in mind. When Alibasic was born, in 1976, his native Monteneg ro wa s a constituent re public of the Socialist Fe dera l Republic of Yug oslavia. See The World Fac tbook, Monteneg ro, at https://www.cia.g ov/library/publications/the-worldfac tbook/ge os/mj.ht ml (last updated September 4, 2008). When the Socialist Fede ral Republic of Yu g os lavia

dis so lve d, in 1 99 2, Mo nte ne g ro joi ne d a fe de ra tio n w ithSe rb ia , th e F e de ra l Re pu bli c of Yug oslavia. I d. I n 2003, this latter entity rena med itself Serbia- Montenegro. I d. On J une 3, 2006, afte r a popula

r re fer endum, Montenegro for mally decla red its independe nce f

rom Serbia. I d. All refe renc es to the Joi nt Appendix, fil ed by the par ties on October

10, 2007, will by 4 cited as “ (JA __).” 3 F AC TS Alibasic’s re quest for a sy lum arises fr om the extraordinarily violent disint eg ration of the fo rm e r Yug os lavia
. Ac c or din g to t he te sti mony

he g ave , thro ug h a

n inte rp re te r, to t

he I J, an d to 3
su pp or tin g do c ume nts he su

bmi tte d to the I mmi g ra

tio n Co ur t, A lib a sic is a

n A lba nia n M us lim , bo rn on Janu ary 1, 19 76 , in

Ti va r, Mo nte ne g ro , Y ug os lavia . ( JA 19 2; 5 63 ) He le ft Yu g os lavia 4 on J une 6, 1998, and tr avele d by way of Russia, Cuba, and Cana da to ar rive in the United States wi t h i nt wo we ek s . (J A 1 9 3 -9 4 ; 5 7 1 ) A tth e t i m e o f h i s t es t i m o n y , at l ea s tth re e o f h i s s i b l i n gs
wer e re sident in the United States, with one brother havingbeen grante d asylum. (J A 192-93; 316) Alibasic r ece ived a Notice to Appear , dated Nove mber, 15, 1999, c harg ing him with being
a re movable alien pur suant to I NA Section 212(a )(6) (A)( i). (JA 589) On J anuar y 12, 1999, Alibasic filed a

For m I -589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, a nd soug ht relief pur suant to Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT” ). (JA 563-73) Al iba sic tol d th e I J that he le ft his nativ e c ountr

y fo r t he fo llo wi ngre a so n: Be cause we’ re A lbanians, we are a minority and the Ser

bs4 have mistreated us. And bec ause of the Army , Ihad to g o to Army
. A n d a s A l b an i an , A l b an i an s w h o ar e m i s tr e a t e d i nth e A r m y . ( JA 194) Alibasic expressed his desire for a sylum more fully in a statement attached to his re vised For m I -589, date d J anuar

y 9, 2004: Icame to the United States . . . to seek political asy lum because as an Ethnic Alba

nian Muslim Albanian [si c] livi ng in Monteneg ro, I have suf fer ed mistreatment, discr imination, and humili ation from the Se rb ian g ov e rnme nt, Se rb ian s old ie rs , a nd Se rb ian p e op le . M y family and I wer e not able to have a normal life in SerbiaMonteneg ro; instead we lived under c ontinuous fear of the ra cial perse cution. * * * . . . Iwas involved in the pe ace ful protests and de mon str a tio ns that th e Al ba nia n[s] o rg anize d in

or de r t o r a ise their voice ag ainst the discriminative politic[s ] of the Serbian g overnme nt. We demonstrated for the human rig hts of the Albanians, fr eedom of

speec h in our languag e, and f ree dom of our re lig ion . T he Se rb ian p oli c e a pp lie d v iol e nc e to i nte rr

up t th e se protests. They

used tea r g as, and be at the par

ticipants violently
. Once a Serbia

n office r ca

ug ht me and beat me rig ht on the side of the stree t. . . . My

problems with the g overnme nt started in May 1998, when I

rec eived a

draf t notice to join the Yug oslavian ar my . The notice stated that I

had to appe ar on Ma

y 28, 1998 to be draf ted in the ar

my . Ireje cted this notice be cause Iknew that . . . the Serbian a

rmy was he adingfor a

cra ckdown in Kosovo, a

nd I did not want to be par

t of this army

that would conduct c rimes on my people. . . . I

did not respond to the dra ft notice. Instead, I left my house and w ent to hide in my friends[’] and relatives’ houses. .

. . After

Ileft Montenegro, my

pare nts told m e that the Milit ary Police had aske d them many times about my

wher eabouts. The police had thre atene d my pare nts . . . . On October 2, 2002, my family rec eived a

nother notice for me to join the ar my . Iwas summoned to appea

r on Oc tober 23, 2002, to be dr afte d in the army . Si nc e Idid

no t a pp e ar, the Mil ita

ry Pol ic e we nt t o my

ho us e and aske d my

pare nts. . . . The police ha d insulted and threatened my fathe r. They

had told him that Ihad no plac e in Montenegro5 beca use I never responde d to the authorities[’] summons. They war ned my pare nts that the only

place waiting for me w as the pr iso n. My

pa re nts we re ve ry

sc are d a nd up se t and

imm e diate ly no tic e d me . T he y

a dv ise d me to d o e ve ry

thi ngpo ssi ble to s tay

[in the United States] and never g o back in Montene g ro. (JA 306-08) As alre ady

noted, the I J issued an ora l decision on Alibasic’s a pplication on Dec ember 13 , 2 00 4. F ind ingAl iba sic ’s te sti mony to b e “ c re dib le ,” the I J y e t he ld t hat he wa s n ot “ e lig ibl e for a sy lum curre ntly

based on the fac t that he is still ref using to g o into the mili tary beca use I do not find that there is e vidence that he will be per secute d beca use of his past fa ilure to g o into the mil ita ry .” (JA 15 6, 16 1) I n f

a c t, t he I J con c lud e d, “ [t]he re is n o e vid e nc e that th e mil ita ry is
curr ently eng ag ed in human rig hts abuses as they clea rly wer e in the past.” (JA 160) Further , the I J revie wed a

State Depa

rtment repor

t, relea sed on F ebrua

ry 25, 2004, entitled “Serbia and Monteneg ro: Country

Reports on Human Rig hts Practices” (“the 2004 Country Report”) , and f o u n d i tt o b e e qu i v o c a l w i t hr e s p e c tt o i t s i mp l i c a t i o n s f o r A l i b a s i c ’ s a

p p l i c a t i o n . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, the I J found that while the 2004 Country Report “talks a

bout the g overnme nt ge nera lly respe cting human rig hts of citizens . . . there ar e still incidents of societal violence and discrimination ag ainst relig ious minoriti es, which [Alibasic] is.” (J A 162) In addition, the I J examined background mater ials submitt ed by Alibasic in support of his application, including one a rticle, pu bli sh e d in Ap ri l 20 04 , b ut n ot s pe c if ic a lly ide nti fi e d b y

the I J, wh ic h d isc us se d “ ba c ks lid ingin Se rb ia
. . . in c lud ingra

pid de te ri or a tio n in

re latio ns be tw e e n Se rb s a nd the ma jor e thn ic minorities including torc hing of mosques [and] desec ration of c emeter ies.” (JA 163) The I J then
ru le d a s f oll ow s: [A]ltho ug h th e re ha [ve ] be e n s ome imp ro ve me nts , I thi nk that it can g et worse ag ain ver

y quickly as indicate d by

the ar ticle . . . . So hopefully

that will not happen but Ithink that [ Alibasic], based on the cur rent c onditions i n Serbia Montene g ro, base d on the fa ct6 that he wa s b e a te n in

the pa st a

nd did e xpe ri e nc e so me pr ob le ms i n the past, sepa

rate and apa

rt from be ing c alled to the military , I think [ he] can de monstrate a w ell-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution . . . and for that rea son Ithink he is eligible f or asy lum. (J A 163) The Gove rnment filed a

timely appea l of the I J ’s dec ision. (J A 150-52) I n its decision, dated August 3, 2006, the BIA did not take issue with the I J ’s finding that Alibasic had te stified
cre dibly , and it assumed for the sake of ar g ument that the I J had cor rec tly found that Alibasic ha d demonstrated that he had be en subjec ted to perse cution prior to his leavingSerbia a nd Monteneg ro. (JA 113) The B I A neve rtheless va cate d the I J ’s g rant of a sylum based upon a
re vie w o f t

he 20 04 Countr

y Re po rt that di ff e rs mark e dly

fr om t he I J’s s umm a tio n o f t

he same document. Specif

ically , the B I A found that the 2004 Country Report
re fl e c ts that Se rb ia

and Mo nte ne g ro ha s und e rg on e so me fundame ntal chang es since [Alibasic’s] depar ture in May

of 1998. The Country

Report indicates that the reg ime of Slobodan M i l o s e v i c i s n o l o n g e r

i np o w e r , th e c o un tr

y i s n o w p o l i c e d

b y a Multi-Ethnic Pol ice F orce that includes ethnic A lbanians, and the e vid e nc e re fl e c ts a

g ra du a l im

pr ov e me nt o f t

he c on dit ion s in Serbia a nd Monteneg ro. Althoug h [Ali basic] claims he wa s perse cuted a s an ethnic Muslim Albanian, the Country Report indicates that the g overnme nt ge nera lly respe cts its citiz en’s human rig hts, and the De puty

Minister for the Protec tion of the Rights of Natio na l Mi no ri tie s in

Mo nte ne g ro ind ic a te d th a t th e re wa s “ little ethnic violence in Monteneg ro duringthe war era ” and that Monteneg ro’s minority

communities are a

“re specte d part of a multi-ethnic state.” ( J A 113-14; citations omitted) The B I A went on to note its “a g ree ment with the [I J ’s] determination that [Ali basic] has
no t e sta bli sh e d e lig ibi lity

fo r r e lie f o n a c c ount o f h is p oli tic a l op ini on , s pe c if ic a lly his re fu sa l to respond to a notice that he had be en dra fted to ser ve in the Ar

my . This fea

r is no longe r objectively

rea sonable, g iven the dra stic chang es in country conditions.” (JA 114; citation omi tte d) Th e B I A c on c lud e d a s f oll ow s:7 [W ]e find that the presumption of future perse cution has be e n o ve rc ome and

[Ali ba sic ] ha s n ot d e mon str a te d a we llfounded f ear of future perse cution in Serbia and Montene g ro on a c c ount o f a

pr ote c te d g ro un d.
. . . Si nc e [Ali ba sic ] ha s f a ile d to satis fy the low e r b ur de n o f p ro of re qu ir e d f

or a sylum , h e ha s a lso fa ile d to satis fy

the highe r, c le a

r p ro ba bil ity sta nd ard of e lig ibi lity re qu ir e d f or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l. Finally , afte r a r eview of

the re cord of

proce eding s, we find that there is no support for the c onclusion that [Ali basic] has bee n or would likely

be torture d by

or with the ac quiesce nce of a g overnme nt official in Serbia and Montene g ro. Ther efor e, [A li b a s ic ] i s n o t e li g ib le f o r r e li e f un d e r [C A T ]. Acc ording ly , the followingorder shall be ente red. ORDER: The Immigration J udg e’s De cembe r 13, 2004 decision g rantingasylum is vacated. FURTHE R ORDER: This m atter is re manded to the I mmigration J udg e in orde r to allow for consideration of any additional available relief including voluntar

y depar ture. (JA 114; citations omitt ed) Al iba sic fi le d a

tim e ly pe tit ion fo r r e vie w o f t

he B I A’ s o rd e r. B e fo re it r e sp on de d to Alibasic’s a

ppeal on the me rits, the Gover nment filed a motion to dismis s based upon the contention that “this Court does not have jur isdiction to review the [BIA’s] Aug ust 3, 2006 decision bec ause A libasic’s administrative proc eeding s are curr ently pendingand incomplete, and ther e is no final orde r.” Responde nt’s Br ief at 2 (footnote omitted).

AN AL YSI S A. Jur isdi c ti on. We f ir st c on sid e r t

he Go ve rnme nt’ s mo tio n to dis mis s. “ [T]hi s Co ur t ha s juri sd ic tio n to revie w only

petitions for revie w of fina l orders of remova l.” Z hao Qua

n Chen v. Gonzales, 4928

F.3d 153, 155 ( 2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (citing8 U.S.C. S ection 1252(d) ). The que stion before us is whether the BIA’s re mand to the I J “for consideration of any

available relief

including voluntary depar ture” constitutes a final orde r. We hold that on the authority of our de cision in L azo v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2006) (pe r cur iam), ce rt. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2909 (2007), the Gove rnment’s motion should be de nie d. I n L a zo, thi s Co ur t he ld t hat “ the statut or

y re qu ir e me nt o f a

n o rd e r o f r e mov a l is satisfied whe n . . . the I J either or ders r emoval or c oncludes that a n alien is remova

ble.” I d. at 54 T h e I J r e c o g n iz e d

th a t A li b a s ic w a s r e mo v a b le un d e r 8 U
. S. C. Se c ti o n1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A ) ( I ) a s “ [a ]n alien pre sent in the United States without being admitted or par oled,” be cause Alibasic had
conce ded the a lleg ations of the Notice to Appear that stated he w as not a c itiz en of the United States and that he w as not admitted or par oled, and he had admitted the c harg e of r emovability
. (JA 155) The I J went on to find, howe ver, that based upon he r re view of the 2004 Country Report, Alibasic wa s elig ible for a sy lum based upon “inc idents of societa l violence a nd dis c ri min a tio n a g a ins t r e lig iou s mi no ri tie s, ” su c h a s A lba nia n M us lim s w ith in S e rb ia . It is thi s latter findingthat the B I A over turned, holding that its review of the same Country

Report demonstrated that “dra stic chang es in country conditions” rende red A libasic’s fe ar of perse cution “no long er obje ctively

rea sonable.” The I J ’s under lying f inding of remova bility based on Alibaic’s c oncessions there fore still stands and, under L azo, the BIA has simply “re moved an impediment to the removal that wa s order ed by the I J .” 462 F .3d at 54. The I J ’s initial finding of re movability

is theref ore a final orde r of r emoval which a ffor ds this C ourt jurisdiction to hear the ins tant a

pp e a l. This conclusion is not altered by our re cent de cision in Rhodes-Br adfor d v. Keisler, 5079

F. 3 d 7 7 (2 d C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). I nt h at ca s e, t h e B I A r ev er s edan I J ’s fi n d i n g th at re m o v al p ro ce ed i n gs
a g a ins t an a lie n s ho uld

be te rm inate d b e c a

us e the a lie n’ s c onvic tio n f or fi rs t- de g re e larc e ny

did
n o tr e n d e r

h i mr e m o v a

b l e a s ana l i e nc o n v i c t e d

o f ana g g r av a t e d

f e l o n y . Id
. a t7 9
. T h e B IA order ed that the a lien was re movable, but this Court vacate d that order beca use “the BIA does not h av e th e a

u th o r it y to is s u e r e mo v a l o r d e r s in th e f ir s t i n s ta n c e . ” I d
. a t 8 1 ( e mp h a s is a d d e d )
. We then dismissed the appea l beca use “the absenc e of a

valid final orde r [of removability ] m eans that we do not have jurisdiction to reac h [t he alien’ s] challeng e to the B I A’s dete rmination that his larc e ny

c on vic tio n c on sti tut e d a

n a g g ra vate d f e lony un de r t he I NA .” I d. a t 82 . T his is p la inl y distinguishable f

rom the instant case wher e an I J ’s finding of re movability has bee n left intact by the B I A’s dec ision. We are also not sway ed by the Gover

nment’s ar g ument that beca use the B I A re manded the ca se to the I J to consider voluntar y depar ture, ther e is no final orde r for our re view, and w e the re fo re la c k ju

ri sd ic tio n to he ar t

his pe tit ion . A s w e do tod ay , o the r C ir c uit s h ave ans we re d in the neg ative the que stion of whether a B I A orde r re manding the ca se to the I J for c onsideration of voluntary depar ture re nders that B I A dec ision non-final so as to deprive the circ uit court of jurisdiction. See e.g ., Saladar riag a v. Gonzales, 402 F .3d 461, 465 n.2 (4 Cir. 2005) (joining th Six th, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits to conclude that “a B I A orde r deny ing r elief f

rom deportation, but remanding case for voluntar y depar ture proc eeding s, or other subsidiary de te rm inatio ns , is imm e diate ly a pp e a la ble ” ). Th e Ni nth

Cir c uit fo un d it pr op e r f or a pe tit ion e r t o appea l from the B I A’s orde r re quiring his removal, rather than the I J ’s subsequent de cision g rantinghim voluntary

depar ture, be cause “ther e wa s nothing pe nding be fore the B oard a nd the petitioner had no r eason or basis for a

ppealingthe Immigration J udg e’s de cision in his favor.”We treat the B I A’s re mand to the I J to be for the sole purpose of consideringAlibasic’s 5 elig ibilit y for voluntar

y depar ture, notwithstanding the B I A’s dire ction that the I J consider “ any ava ila ble re lie f i nc lud ingvo luntary de pa rt ur e .” B oth

pa rt ie s w e re a sk e d b y

thi s Co ur t to a dd re ss whether any forms of r elief, othe r than voluntary depar ture, would be available to Alibasic. Neither party has identified to us any

other for ms of relief

for whic h Alibasic would be e ligible. 10 Ca str e jon -G arc ia

v. I NS, 60 F .3 d 1 35 9, 13 61 -6 2 ( 9 Cir . 1 99 5) . Si mil arl y , th e El e ve nth Cir c uit th took jurisdiction over an a ppeal of a B I A dec ision denying r elief f rom remova l, expl aining that “[a]s all of the issues presente d to us were subject to a fina l order by the B I A and ther e is nothing
rema ining f

or [the petitioner] to appeal as the only thing lef t for the I J to determine is the c ountry to which [he] wil l be re moved, we f ind that the BIA’s orde r constitutes a fina l order of remova l.” Del Pilar v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 326 F .3d 1154, 1157 (11 Cir. 2003) (per curiam). We find the th
rea soning of

our sister Circuits to be per suasive. We hold, there fore , that a B I A orde r deny ing
re lie f f ro m r e mov a l and

re mand ingfo r t

he so le purp os e of

c on sid e ri ngvo luntary

de pa rt ur e is a final orde r of r emoval that this Court has jurisdiction to review. All of the issues pre sented to us 5 in this petit ion for re view we re subjec t to the BIA’s orde r. I t was prope r for Alibasic to petition for r eview of

that order

without waiting f

or the I J ’s dec ision reg ardingvoluntary depar ture. B. Th e M e r it s o f t he P e t it io n f o r R e v ie w. The I J found that, as a

matter of la

w, Alibasic wa s entitled for a sylum. Although not expli citly stated in its opinion, we assume that the B I A prope rly followed a

pplicable r egulations and re viewed the I J ’s dec ision pursuant to a de novo standa rd. See 8 C.F .R. Section 1003, I (d )( 3) (i i) . A s w e e xpla in b e low , h ow e ve r, wh e n th e c on du c t of su c h r e vie w l e a ds the B I A t o
c on c lud e that an I J’s a sylum de te rm inatio n s ho uld

be re ve rs e d, the B I A c ann ot s us ta in t his conclusion mere ly

by pointing to aspe cts of the r ecor d befor e the I J which support re versa l. Rathe r, our p re c e de nts re qu ir e the B I A’ s o pin ion to e ng a g e the I J’s a sylum de te rm inatio n in11

sufficie nt detail such that it is clear to a re viewingcourt: (1) why the portions of the re cord r elied
on by the I J do n ot s up po rt

the I J’s d e te rm inatio n a

nd (2 ) why the re c or d a s a

wh ole su pp or ts
re ve rs a l. I n order to be consider ed a r efug ee a nd there fore elig ible for a sylum, Alibasic must show that he has suf

fer ed past pe rsec ution on account of “ra ce, r elig ion, nationality , membership in a particula r social g roup, or political opinion,” or that he has a well-founde d fea

r of f uture perse cution on such g rounds should he be or dere d to return to his native c ountry . See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (42). As discusse d above, the I J found that Alibasic ha d suffe red f rom perse cution in the past and the B I A adopted this findingarguendo. Past perse cution, howeve r, is “ra rely sufficie nt in i tse lf to e nti tle an a

pp lic ant t o a sylum ,” but it do e s “ a uto matic a lly

g ive [] ris e to a

re butta ble presumption of a w ell-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution . . . .” Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 78 ( 2d Cir. 2005). The Gove rnment ca n defe at this presumption “if ‘a preponde ranc e of the e vid e nc e e sta

bli sh e s th a t a

c ha ng e in c ir c ums tanc e s in

the a pp lic ant’ s c ountr

y of natio na lity has occ urre d such that the a pplicant’s fe ar is no long er w ell-founde d.’” I d. (quoting Guan Shan L iao v. U.S. Dep’ t of J ustice, 293 F .3d 61, 67 (2d Cir. 2002) (c iting 8 C.F.R. Section 208.13(b)( 1)(i)) . A well-f ounded fe ar is “a

subjective fe ar that is objectively rea sonable. A f

ear is objectively

rea sonable e ven if ther e is only a slig ht, though disce rnible, cha nce of perse cution.” Tambadou v. G onzales, 446 F.3d 298, 302 (2d Cir. 2006) (citations and inter nal quotation marks omitted). Where, a s here , the B I A vac ates the de cision of the I J , we r eview only the dec ision of the BIA. See Ya

n Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 ( 2d Cir. 2005). We will assume, howeve r, that Alibasic wa s a cr edible witness bec ause the I J found him to be such and the BIA did not12

disturb that finding. See id. at 271-72. We revie w the ag ency ’s fa ctual finding s under the substantial evidence standard, tr eatingthem as “c onclusive unless any rea sonable a djudicator would be compe lled to conclude to the c ontrary .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (B ). We will, however , vacate and r emand f

or newfinding s if the ag ency ’s re asoning or its fac t-finding proce ss was sufficie ntly

flawe d. See Cao He L in v. U.S. Dep’t of Justi ce, 428 F .3d 391, 406 (2d Cir. 2005). Thus , “ [d]e sp ite our g e ne ra lly de fe re nti a l r e vie w o f I J and B I A o pin ion s, we re qu ir e a c e rt a in min imum le ve l of

ana ly sis fr om t

he I J and B I A o pin ion s d e nyinga sylum , a nd ind e e d mu st require such if judicial re view is to be mea ningf ul.” Poradisova, 420 F .3d at 77 (c ollecting
case s). Our re view is furthe r guided by the principle that “this Court is not ignor ant of i n d i s p ut a b l e h i s t o r i c a l e v e n t s . ” X i a o X i n g N i v . G o n z a l e s , 4 9 4 F
. 3 d 2 6 0 , 2 7 2 ( 2 d

C i r . 2 0 0 7 )
. In the context of this case the indisputable e vents, as re cog nized by the I J , are that “re ligion and ethnicity are intertwined c losely

throug hout Serbia Montenegro [sic] , which wa s alway s the ca se. Th a t w a s th e pr ob le m w iththe wa r, that is why

pe op le we re be ingkil le d, be c a us e of the ir
re lig ion and e thn ic ity .” (JA16 2) We d o n ot p e rc e ive that th e Go ve rnme nt w ou ld d isp ute thi s assessment. Rather , it is t he Gove rnment’s a ssertion that “[s] ubstantial evidenc e supports the [BI A’s] conclusion that, whether or not Alibasic esta

blished past perse cution in SerbiaMonteneg ro, conditions in that country have c hang ed ‘r emar

kably ’ since his de parture in 1998, such that he doe s not have a well-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution if he retur ned ther e.” Re spondent’s Br ief at 21. The c ore of

Alibasic’s a

rgument to the contra

ry is a proce dural one . That is, he conte nds that the B I A er

red be cause “it took administrative notice of c hang ed countr y conditions” and he13

“wa s not provided with an opportunity to respond to their ne w finding s in order to e x plain how the cha ng es would af

fec t his particular c ase.” Petitioner’s Br ief at 26. Alibasic particula rly relies upon Bur g er v. G onzales, 498 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2007) , in which the B I A re verse d an I J ’s g rant of asylum to a Serbian alien. The BIA noted that, af ter the I J ’s dec ision, the Milos evic g overnme nt in S e rb ia ha d f a lle n, and be c a us e the pe tit ion e r’ s “ c la ims re ste d o n h e r a nti -M ilo se vic vie ws , [she] no longe r had a

well-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution.” I d. at 133. This Court reve rsed a nd ruled that “ wher e [as here ] admini stratively noticed fa cts are the sole basis for the B I A’s re versa l of an I J’s g ra

nt o f a sylum ,” the B I A “ e rr [s] by fa ili ngto g ive [the pe tit ion e r] a dv anc e no tic e of its intention to consider th[ese] ex tra-r ecor d fac t[ s].” I d. at 135. As the Gove rnment cor

rec tly argues, howe ver, “ the [BI A] did not take a dminist rative notice of c hang ed countr

y conditions, but rather, pr operly relied upon the evidenc e of r ecor d, including the contents of the United States Depa rtment of State’s Country Report of 2004.” Respondent’s B rief a

t 24. Thus, Alibasic is not sim ilarly situated with the petitioner in B urg er beca use the B I A’s sole re liance upon the rec ord evide nce be fore the I J means that he was e ntitled to no prior notice a s to the substance of the B I A’s dec ision. This does not end the matter , howeve r, bec ause w e believe that this Court’s rece nt decision in Niangv. Mukasey , 511 F.3d 138 ( 2d Cir. 2007), war rants the va catur

and re mand of the B I A’s dec ision in t he instant ca se. In Niang , a petitioner f rom Mauritania

was de nied asylum by an I J who ma de an a dv e rs e c re dib ili ty fi nd ingbe c a

us e the pe tit ion e r h a d s ub mitte d a lle g e dly forg ed docume nts and “the I J did not believe that [the petitioner] was who he sa id he was.” I d. at 144. The I J also conc luded, howeve r, “that, assuming that [the petitioner] had suffe red perse cution in Mauritania, c onditions t here had not fundamentally chang ed such that his li fe or14

fre edom would no long er be threatened. The evidenc e fr om the State Depa rtment was conflicting ; though ther e we re some indications that people wer e re turning , Mauritania still had ‘a ve ry bad human r ights re cord.’ ” I d. The B I A af firmed the a dverse cre dibilit y deter mination, but de pa rt e d f ro m th e I J’s d e c isi on

in t hat “ the B I A s e e me d to sa y that e ve n if

[the pe tit ion e r’ s]
acc ount were true, he should be denied r elief be cause ‘the re cord indicates that the cur rent situation in Mauritania has improved dr amatica lly , lesseningthe likelihood of perse cution.’” I d. at 149. On appe al, this Court vacate d the adve rse c redibility finding and, havingdone so, we nt on to consider the B I A’s dete rmination that chang ed countr y conditions warr anted a

denial of asylum. W e held that “ the B I A provided insuff icient re asoning to support its finding of c hang ed country conditions”: Th e B I A’ s o ne -l ine state me nt t hat c on dit ion s in

Ma ur ita nia have “ imp ro ve d d

ra matic a lly” do e s n ot s uf

fi c e a s a ho ldi ngthat a fundame ntal chang e of c ircumstance s occur red. Tr ue, our Court ha s h e ld t hat “ wh e re . . . c ha

ng e d c ir c ums tanc e s e vid e ntl y pr e va il in a country

that is the subject of a

n appre ciable pr oportion of asylum claims . . . an [I J ] need not enter spe cific f indings pre mised on rec ord evide nce when makinga findingof cha ng ed countr

y conditions under the I

NA.” H ox hallari v. Gonzales, 468 F .3d 179, 187 (2d Cir. 2006) (pe r cur iam) (e mphasis added) . But we have since said that Hoxhallari stands for the “unc ontroversia l pr op os iti on s th a t [i] th is C ourt is n ot i g no ra

nt o f i nd isp uta

ble historical eve nts . . . and [ii ] we will not assume the ag ency suffe rs from such ig noranc e.” X iao XingNi v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 272 (2d Cir. 2007). Clearly , no “indisputable historical e vent” supports the BIA’s dec ision, where the I J , rely ing on the very

same re cord e vid e nc e , r e a c he d th e op po sit e c on c lus ion , a nd e xpla ine d in

de ta il his reasons f

or doing so. Since Hoxhallari does not apply , the no rm a l r e qu ir e me nts fo r a va lid fa c tua l de te rm inatio n r e ma in i n forc e. The ag ency

must provide a re asoned ba sis for its decision, B e sk ov ic v. Go nza le s, 46 7 F .3 d 2 23 , 2 27 (2 d Ci r. 20 06 ), and mus t15 premise that de cision on substantial evidence in the rec ord, Tambadou v. G onzales, 446 F.3d 298, 303-04 ( 2d Cir. 2006). Neither of these r equire ments is satisfied by a bald a ssertion that conditions in Mauritania have “improved dr amatica lly .” I d. ; se e a lso Pa ssi v. Muka se y , 5 35 F .3 d 9 8, 10 3 ( 2d Cir . 2 00 8) (f

ind ingthat B I A “ imp ro pe rl y inferr ed” that petitioner was not elig ible for a sylum “beca use its infere nce w as base d entirely on a countr y repor t that details g ener al improvements,” but a lso indicates that petitioner’s home town “is still t roubled by

ethnic and political c onflict”). I n o ur c a se , th e B I A l ike wi se ide nti fi e s n o “ ind isp uta ble his tor ic a l e ve nt” wh ic h c omp e ls a findingthat the Alibasic will no long er f ace perse cution should he retur n to his native country
. Rathe r, “ re lyingon

the ve ry same re c or d e vid e nc e ” a s d id t he I J, the B I A r e a c he d a

dr amatic a lly differ ent assessment than the I J reg ardingcountry conditions in S erbia

and Montene g ro. Although the BIA’s support for its assessment is more than “a one-line state ment,” it is not much more. We there fore do not think that the BIA has de monstrated that its decision is supported by “substantial evidenc e in the re cord,” espec ially beca use it does not even a ddress the e vidence of continued per secution of Ser bian minorities identified by the I J in supporting mate rials submitted b y A l i b a s i c an d

i nth e 2 0 0 4 C o u n t r

y R e p o rti t s e l f

. S e e P a s s i , 5 3 5 F
. 3 d

a t1 0 2 ( f i n d i n g th a tB IA improperly

failed to c onsider informa tion favora

ble to petitioner “in the c ountry repor t as well as
se ve ra l ne ws art ic le s su

bmi tte d b y ” pe tit ion e r) . We the re fo re c on c lud e that th e B I A f a ile d “ to conduct a n individualiz ed ana ly sis of whether the cha ng es in conditions in [ Alibasic’s homela nd]
wer e so fundamental that they are sufficie nt to rebut the pre sumption t hat [Alibasic’s] fear of pe rs e c uti on

is w e ll- fo un de d. ” I d. a t 10 3- 04 ; T amba do u, 44 6 F .3 d at 30 4 ( B I A i mpr op e rl y “ did not eng ag e in an individualized analy sis bey ond its ge nera l conclusions based on its over

-Our c on c lus ion is n ot a lte re d b y

the fa c t th a t th e B I A d e te rm ine d A lib a sic ’s e lig ibi lity 6 for a sy lum based upon its rea ding of a Country

Report issued by

the U.S. State Depa

rtment. The Gover nment corr ectly

argues that “this Court has re cog nized” that these re ports “ar e ‘usua lly the best source of information on country conditions.’” Respondent’ s Br ief at 23 (quoting Z amora v. I NS, 53 4 F .2 d 1 05 5, 10 62 (2 d Ci r. 19 76 )) . M or e re c e ntl y , h ow e ve r, we have c a uti on e d a g a ins t “excessive r eliance ” upon State De partment re ports, noting that “ their obser vations do not automatically

discredit contr ary

evidenc e pre sented by

the applica

nt, and they

are not binding on the immigration court. Thus, wher e a r eport sug g ests that, in ge nera l, an [applicant] would not su ff e r o r r e a so na

bly fe ar p e rs e c uti on

in a pa rt ic ula r c ountr y ,” the imm ig ratio n c ourt is s til l “oblig ated to conside r also any contra ry or counte rvailing evidenc e with which it is prese nted, as well as the pa

rticular c ircumstance s of the applica nt’s case as demonstrated by testimony

and other e vidence .” Tian- YongChen v. I NS, 359 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 2004) ( internal c itations omitted; emphasis in original). 16 simpli fied re ading ” of c ountry repor t). 6 C . R e li e f. Be cause “[w]e cannot pre dict with confidenc e” that the BIA would ag ain re verse the I J ’s g rant of a sy lum if it conducted a pr operly thoroug h revie w of the r ecor d evidenc e, we vacate the BIA’s dec ision and remand so that such a re view may be conduc ted. Niang , 511 F.3d at 149- 15 0. We a sk

that, u po n r e mand , th e B I A b e pr e c ise in s tatin g the sta nd ard s it is e mpl oyingwi th
re sp e c t to the I J’s d e c isi on su c h th a t, s ho uld

a pe tit ion fo r r e vie w a g a in b e c on sid e re d b y thi s Court , w e are no t “ c omp e lle d to g ue ss at th e the or y un de rl yingthe B I A’ s a c tio n. ” Shi L iangL in v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F.3d 184, 192 ( 2d Cir. 2005). Fur ther, we note that history

has not stopped in the B alkans duringthe pende ncy of Alibasic’s a

pplication for a sy lum. W e have alre ady made mention of Montene g ro’s de clar ation of indepe ndence , in 2006, from Serbia. See , supra, at 2, n.3. As we discussed w ith the parties during oral a

rgument, international re cog nition of the predominantly Muslim R epublic of Kosovo, in ear ly

2008, may

have some eff

ect on how e thnic minorities are tre ated in the f ormer Yug oslavia. See, e .g ., Charles Simic, “The T roubled B irth of Kosovo,” N ew Yor k Review of17

Books, Apr il 3, 2008, at 3. Since oral a rgument, the J uly

2008 captur e and e x tradition of the
acc used B osnian Serb wa r cr iminal, Radovan Kar adzic, afte r a dozen y ear s in hiding, has c aused further speculation about the future state of inter- ethnic re lations in the Balka ns. See, e.g ., Stefan Wagstyl and Neil Mac donald, “B rea kthroug h in the Ba lkans,” F inancial Times, July 26/27, 2008, at 8. B e c a

us e the re c or d in

thi s c a se ha s n ot b e e n s up ple me nte d s inc e the I J’s d e c isi on in Dec ember

2004, the implications of events that have occ urre d in the former Yug oslavia over

the past four year s for Alibasic’ s application for asylum – as to which we of course express no opinion – have re ceive d no ag ency consideration. Bec ause w e have cautioned a g ainst ag ency
re lia nc e up on “ outdate d” inf

or matio n “ that ma

y no t [] ac c ur a te ly

re fl e c t[] the c ur

re nt c on dit ion s” of an a pplicant’s homeland, T ambadou, 446 F .3d at 404, it would be troubling if, on rema nd, the
a g e nc y did no t ava il i tse lf

of the op po rt

un ity to c on sid e r u

pd a te d in fo rm a tio n. We t he re fo re no te that th e fi lin g of

a mot ion to r e op e n u

po n r e mand

in o rd e r t o s up ple me nt t

he re c or d w ith sufficie ntly

curr ent evidenc e is particula rly appropr iate in this case. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c )(6) (C)(ii).

CO NC LU SION We G RA NT the petition for re view, VA CA TE the dec ision of the BIA deny ing Alibasic’s c laims for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval, and CAT re lief, and REMAND the c a se for f urther pr ocee dings c onsistent with thi s opinion.