a reasonable, valid construction of § 208’s “one central reason” standard. B. Regardless of the BIA’s misstep in interpreting § 208, its denial of Petitioners’ application for asylum still stands because it was based on a finding that their Burundian origin was no more than an incidental factor in their persecution, a finding that is supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Gomez-Zuluaga, 527 F.3d at 340. Remand for reconsideration under the corrected mixed-motives standard is therefore not necessary. See Chen v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 212, 221 (3d Cir.2005) (denying petition for review of immigration judge’s decision without a remand, despite legal error, because result was still supported by substantial evidence); Mahmood v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 248, 253 (3d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Applicants for asylum bear the burden of
holding that it may be decided as a matter of law holding that remand is unnecessary when it is clear that the same decision would have been reached in the absence of the errors holding that in the absence of demonstrated prejudice remand is unnecessary holding that remand is unnecessary when only one conclusion is supportable on the record holding remand unnecessary where outcome is clear as a matter of law