of a blow to his head. Just before he passed out, someone grabbed his arm and tried to slash his wrist. Claudia Plesea testified that she found her husband in a ditch covered in blood. Viorel Plesea te nt detention and beating of Plesea also demonstrate that the government was unwilling to control the elements of Romanian society that were intolerant of Plesea and his religious beliefs. See Singh v. INS, 94 F.3d 1353, 1360 (9th Cir.1996). Thus, we must reverse the BIA’s finding regarding persecution for the reasons explained above and remand for further proceedings. We also reverse the BIA’s finding that Plesea firmly resettled in Italy, because the government adduced no evidence of Plesea’s right to stay in Italy. See Maharaj v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 961, 976 (9th Cir .2006) (en bane) (<HOLDING>). We express no opinion as to whether the BIA
holding that under the regulations the ins bears the initial burden of producing evidence that indicates that the firm resettlement bar applies and should the ins satisfy this threshold burden of production both the burden of production and the risk of nonpersuasion then shift to the applicant to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she had not firmly resettled in another country holding that the government bears the initial burden of producing evidence that a third country offered the applicant some type of permanent resettlement or evidence a third country officially sanctioned the aliens indefinite presence holding that once the government presents some evidence indicating that asylum is unavailable on the grounds of firm resettlement the petitioner bears the burden of proving that such ground does not apply holding that for purposes of claim 4 another country means a country other than the first and second country explicitly rejecting tpllcs proposed construction holding that the state department country report constituted substantial evidence to support the agencys finding of changed country conditions in guatemala