Opinion ID: 202978
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Agency Consideration of Past Persecution

Text: In his last charge of legal error, Kho argues that his case must be remanded because the IJ failed to make an explicit finding regarding past persecution. [6] Under certain circumstances, the agency's failure to address the issue of past persecution could result in depriving an asylum applicant of the benefit of the regulatory presumption of fear of persecution based on prior events. El Moraghy, 331 F.3d at 205; see also Un v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 205, 207 (1st Cir.2005). In El Moraghy, the BIA summarily affirmed an IJ's denial of asylum even though the IJ did not make any findings regarding past persecution and in the face of significant evidence in the record that the petitioner may have experienced persecution. Id. at 198-202. The complete failure of the agency to address the issue necessitated remand for further development of the record. Id. at 205. Kho's argument fails on its face. Here, the BIA explicitly addressed the issue of past persecution and has provided an adequate basis for this court to review the agency's decision. Cf. Sulaiman v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 347, 350 (1st Cir.2005) (holding that El Moraghy did not erect per se rule requiring IJs to make explicit holdings as to every factor relevant to deciding a case).