Mihaylov v. Ashcroft

Petitioner Stefan Antonov Mihaylov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for asylum. Petitioner Ludmila Georgeva Naydenova is a derivative asylum applicant. 1 Mihaylov argues that the evidence presented below compels a conclusion that he was persecuted in the past on account of his political opinion and is therefore entitled to a statutory presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. He further claims that the evidence of changed circumstances offered by the government is insufficient to overcome that presumption and that he is therefore eligible for asylum. Ordinarily, we review the BIA's decision under our deferential ""substantial evidence"" standard, upholding that decision if it is ""supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole."" INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). In this case, however, we are unable to conduct a proper substantial evidence review of the BIA's decision because neither the BIA nor the Immigration Judge explained with adequate clarity and particularity the grounds for rejecting Mihaylov's past persecution claim. In light of this legally insufficient explanation, see Gailius v. INS, 147 F.3d 34, 44 (1st Cir. 1998), we vacate the BIA's order and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.