Opinion ID: 201926
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the IJ's Opinion

Text: 8 Sulaiman faults the IJ for failing to make specific findings as to whether or not he suffered from past persecution. He also complains that the IJ did not thoroughly consider the State Department country report for Syria. These claims go to the sufficiency of the IJ's opinion to support meaningful review, rather than to the procedures the IJ employed at the hearing or to the merits of the decision. On a challenge to the sufficiency of an opinion, the usual remedy is remand, which we will order if the BIA's opinion fails to state with sufficient particularity and clarity the reasons for denying relief. Xu v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 45, 49 (1st Cir.2005) (quoting Halo v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 15, 18 (1st Cir.2005)). 9 Sulaiman cites El Moraghy v. Ashcroft, 331 F.3d 195, 203 (1st Cir.2003), in support of his argument that the IJ should have made a specific finding as to whether he suffered from past persecution. El Moraghy indicates that a finding with respect to past persecution may be necessary under some circumstances. It did not by any means create a per se rule requiring an explicit holding as to every factor that an IJ might find relevant in making a determination. This is because, [w]hen considering whether the clarity of an administrative decision is sufficient to support our review,... we are not ... oblivious of the record on which it is based. Xu, 424 F.3d at 49. An IJ is obligated to offer more explanation when the record suggests strong arguments for the petitioner that the IJ has not considered, see, e.g., Halo, 419 F.3d 15; Gailius v. INS, 147 F.3d 34 (1st Cir.1998), but that is not the case here. 10 The IJ, it is true, did not use the phrase past persecution. It is nevertheless evident from her opinion that she found no indication that Sulaiman's experiences in Syria amounted to persecution under the withholding of removal statute. The IJ's opinion indicates with clarity that she considered Sulaiman's testimony as to his experiences in Syria and concluded that they did not justify a finding that it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted if he returned to Syria. We do not require an IJ to intone any magic words before we will review her determination. See Morales v. INS, 208 F.3d 323, 328 (1st Cir.2000). 11 Sulaiman also claims that the IJ did not sufficiently consider the Department of State country report that Sulaiman submitted into evidence, but this claim also fails for similar reasons. The IJ asserted, though in a bare fashion, that she had considered the country report: The Court, she said, has considered the Department of State reports put in by the Government. Although that is the only mention of the report in the opinion, it is enough to satisfy a reviewing court that the IJ did in fact consider it. Had the contents of the report rendered the IJ's opinion sufficiently unclear by casting doubt on the reasoning of her decision, we would remand for clarification. But nothing in the State Department report suggests that Sulaiman would be more likely than not to be persecuted or tortured if he returned to Syria, and we therefore require no more detailed explanation from the IJ than she offered.