With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for aliens entitled to protection but subject to mandatory denial of withholding. See Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 958-61 (9th Cir.2006). The IJ denied Aguilar’s application for deferral of removal under CAT, and the BIA affirmed. Because neither the BIA nor the IJ made an adverse credibility finding, “we must assume that [Aguilar’s] factual contentions are true.” Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 652 on El Salvador was included in the record without objection and that Aguilar attached it to his pro se brief to the BIA. Yet, neither the IJ nor the BIA considered the Country Report in denying Aguilar relief under CAT. The failure of the IJ and BIA to consider evidence of country conditions constitutes reversible error. See, e.g., Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143, 1147-48 (9th

A: holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it
B: holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by giving summary consideration to evidence presented in a motion to reopen particularly when dealing with evidence which the bia is asked to repeatedly consider
C: holding that bia did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider an unauthenticated document submitted with a motion to reopen to show changed country conditions
D: holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions
D.