CA1: remand to the IJ because he didn’t explain

Sok v. Mukasey, No. 07-2113 remands back to the IJ on a withholding of removal claims because “the BIA and IJ gave a legally insufficient explanation of why Sok failed to prove that she suffered past persecution in Cambodia, we grant the petition with respect to the withholding claim.”  The First says that there are six events that establish persecution, and it can’t seem to figure out how the IJ ruled on them.  Specifically, the First says that it is simply wrong to call “threats” “mere threats” because threats can be persecution.  And, in this case, the threats seems credible. 

Secondly, the IJ seems to have found a “massacre” to be incredible because the petitioner didn’t present a police report.  In fact, the IJ seemed to have assumed that a police report would be generated, even though there is some indication in State Department reports that the opposite is happening.  So, the First remands so that the agency can do a better job.