8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1). Furthermore, a “judicial judgment cannot be made to do service for an administrative judgment”. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 88, 63 S.Ct. 454, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943). This is especially true with regard to immigration matters; as this court noted previously, “federal immigration laws are exceedingly complex”. Marcello v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 851, 857 (5th Cir.1986) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, because the “principles of Chevron deference are applicable to this statutory scheme”, INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 424, 119 S.Ct. 1439, 143 L.Ed.2d 590 (1999), remand is appropriate in order for the BIA to review its decision in the light of Theodros. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (<HOLDING>). III. For the foregoing reasons, the BIA
holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review 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 a court of appeals should remand a case to an agency for decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands 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 when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address in the first instance