the errors, the IJ or BIA would have reached a different conclusion.” Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 401 (2d Cir.2005). “[A]dministrative law cases from both the Supreme Court and our court strongly suggest that we should disregard errors” in the asylum context when no change in the outcome would result. Id. (citing NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 766 n. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1426, 22 L.Ed.2d 709 (1969) (stating that “[SEC v. ]Chenery [, 318 U.S. 80, 63 S.Ct. 454, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943) ] does not require that we convert judicial review of agency action into a ping-pong game” and that remand is not required when it “would be an idle and useless formality”)); Mass. Trs. of E. Gas & Fuel Assocs. v. United States, 377 U.S. 235, 246-48, 84 S.Ct. 1236, 12 L.Ed.2d 268 (1964) (<HOLDING>); NLRB v. Am. Geri-Care, Inc., 697 F.2d 56, 64
holding that chenery does not require a remand where it is clear that any arguable error would not have made a difference in the agency determination 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 it is not holding that a trial court does not commit plain error unless the error is clear under current law holding when it is not clear that the sentencing judge would have imposed the same sentence if a lower sentencing range would have been available remand is required