also entitled to withholding of deportation based on that persecution. Id. at 1023, 1031-32. Remand was not necessary for further factual development, as the predicate facts were not disputed. In contrast, the IJ here never reached the legal or factual questions of eligibility for either asylum or withholding in light of current country conditions because she simply rejected all of Secaida’s testimony regarding the events in Guatemala he claimed led to his flight. Furthermore, a substantial amount of time has passed since the IJ assessed Secaida’s application. Given our above conclusion that the IJ erred by rejecting Secaida’s testimony, it appears remand is necessary in this case to allow the IJ to reach the secondary question of country conditions. See Ventura, 123 S.Ct. at 355-56 (<HOLDING>). As we noted in Yang, however, while Secaida
holding that the bia did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen supported by allegedly unavailable evidence regarding changed country conditions where there had been a previous adverse credibility finding in the underlying asylum hearing holding that 8 cfr  10032c3ii applies to changed country conditions in the country of origin or deportation and not changed personal circumstances in the united states holding that this court must remand to the bia to allow it to address in the first instance an issue that it has not yet considered holding that appellate court erred by reaching question of changed country conditions where neither bia nor ij had been given a chance to address it in the first instance holding that in evaluating evidence of changed country conditions the bia compares the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below