Opinion ID: 4546294
Heading Depth: 7
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: subject to violence and abuse from third

Text: parties and government officials, (2) denied their rights under Mexican and international law, and (3) wrongly returned to countries from which they fled persecution. Yet, even though this mountain of evidence points one EAST BAY SANCTUARY COVENANT V. BARR 41 way, the agencies went the other—with no explanation. E. Bay I, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 952–55 (emphases in original). An agency must “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. “Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Id. In promulgating the Rule, the agencies “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.” Id. Further, the agencies’ conclusion that aliens barred by the Rule have a safe alternative in Mexico “runs counter to the evidence before the agency.” Id.