the [applicant’s] affidavit for reasons that are within their expertise. However, if they do not articulate such reasons, we are unable to discharge our statutory obligation of review. To determine whether the administrative action was arbitrary, the courts must be apprised why evidence, relevant and persuasive on its face, was discredited. We must also review the decisions of administrative agencies to ascertain whether the proceedings were conducted with regularity, including whether the agency considered the relevant evidence. Id. at 837. See also Tipu v. INS, 20 F.3d 580, 586 (3d Cir.1994) (“[T]he Board faded to consider one of the factors in Tipu’s favor, a practice which in Sotto v. INS resulted in a remand for reconsideration.”); Bastidas v. INS, 609 F.2d 101, 105 (3d Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, in the case at bar, we are given no
holding that an order will be affirmed when correct even if the reasons given by the trial judge were incorrect holding that decision of this court unless or until overturned by this court en banc the  federal circuit or the supreme court is a decision of the court on the date it is issued any rulings interpretations or conclusions of law contained in such a decision are authoritative and binding as of the date the decision is issued and are to be considered and when applicable are to be followed by va agencies of original jurisdiction the board and the secretary in adjudicating and resolving claims holding that the district courts decision to dismiss will be affirmed unless it has abused its discretion holding that the decision of the bia will not be affirmed by this court unless the reasons for such a finding are made clear holding that a sentencing decision will be affirmed if challenged factor is permissible and other factors are not challenged