Opinion ID: 1237154
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Presumption of Well-Founded Fear

Text: Brezilien next argues that the DHS regulations pertaining to termination of asylum status  8 C.F.R. §§ 208.22 and 208.24(g)  apply in removal proceedings, and that, absent termination of a prior grant of asylum, there is a rebuttable presumption that a petitioner has a well-founded fear of future persecution. He contends that the BIA erred in declining to apply this presumption in his case. Although we conclude that we have jurisdiction to review this claim because Brezilien sufficiently raised it before the BIA and thus properly exhausted his administrative remedies, see Kaganovich v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 894, 897 (9th Cir.2006), the BIA never addressed it. [I]t goes without saying that IJs and the BIA are not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner. Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir.2005). We therefore remand this question to the BIA to address it in the first instance. See Ventura, 537 U.S. at 16, 123 S.Ct. 353; Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 806 (9th Cir.2004).