Opinion ID: 2648195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nepal

Text: Upon consideration of the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions, we conclude that we are unable to review the agency’s determination that Chonjor failed to establish past persecution in Nepal because the agency did not clearly state its justification for this finding. See Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223, 227 (2d Cir. 2006) (requiring a certain minimal level of analysis from agency decisions denying asylum to enable meaningful judicial review). With respect to the 1986 burning of Chonjor’s home by Nepalese locals, it is unclear whether the IJ’s rejection of Chonjor’s claim is predicated on a lack of nexus or the insufficiency of the harm. Although the BIA appears to have interpreted the IJ’s decision as relating to whether the harm Chonjor suffered rose to the level of persecution, the government contends that the IJ rejected Chonjor’s claim on nexus grounds. Because we cannot confidently ascertain the agency’s justification for rejecting Chonjor’s claim of past persecution in Nepal, we remand to the agency for a clearer statement of its past persecution finding. See Beskovic, 467 F.3d at 227; see also Eneh v. Holder, 601 F.3d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 2010). 3