deny relief in cases where the administrative record could sup port the opposite conclusion. Halo, 419 F.3d at 19 (stating that the evidence presented a strong argument for persecution, and the BIA did not give its reasons for concluding the opposite); Gailius, 147 F.3d at 46 (stating that “the documentary evidence alone, if genuine, could well cause us to question the conclusion that there is no well-founded fear of persecution”); accord Xu v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 45, 46 (1st Cir.2005) (“We held in Halo that, where the administrative record of a case could easily be thought to compel a conclusion contrary to the one reached by the BIA, it is incumbent on the agency to give some reasoned explanation for the conclusion it reached.”); Sulaiman v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 347, 350 (1st Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>) (citing Halo, 419 F.3d at 15, and Gailius, 147
holding that the agency is obligated to offer more explanation when the record suggests strong arguments for the petitioner that the agency has not considered holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency in the first instance to address holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address in the first instance holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address it in the first instance holding that deference to an agency interpretation is not appropriate where a statute is administered by more than one agency