## Facts

- Fredy Orlando Ventura, a Guatemalan national, entered the United States unlawfully in 1993.
- Ventura sought asylum and withholding of deportation, alleging past persecution and fear of future persecution based on imputed political opinion.
- Ventura testified that guerrillas threatened to kill or harm him unless he joined them and that his family’s ties to the Guatemalan military caused guerrillas to impute an opposing political opinion to him.
- An Immigration Judge denied relief, finding (1) no persecution “on account of” political opinion and (2) changed conditions in Guatemala eliminated any present realistic threat.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed solely on the nexus ground and did not address changed country conditions.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the BIA on nexus and then decided the changed-conditions issue itself, despite both parties requesting a remand to the BIA, and ruled the record did not show sufficient change.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari and summarily reversed.

## Issues

1. After reversing the BIA on one ground, may a court of appeals decide an alternative, fact-dependent issue the BIA did not reach (changed country conditions), or must it remand that issue to the agency?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded.
- The Court held that ordinary administrative-law principles required the Ninth Circuit to remand the changed-country-conditions question to the BIA for initial decision.
- The Court did not decide whether conditions in Guatemala had changed or whether Ventura ultimately qualified for asylum or withholding.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute entrusts a basic determination to an agency, a reviewing court may not substitute its own judgment for the agency’s on an issue the agency has not decided.
- If an agency decision cannot be sustained on the grounds the agency gave, the usual course is remand for further agency investigation, explanation, and initial determination of unresolved matters.
- Remand is especially appropriate where the unresolved issue depends on agency expertise and fact evaluation, and where the record may require development (including updated evidence).

## Conclusion

The Court required remand to the BIA because the changed-country-conditions issue had not been addressed by the agency; the court of appeals exceeded its reviewing role by deciding that issue in the first instance.


Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002)