for Review GRANTED. REMANDED. 1 . The BIA’s summary affirmance occurred several years after Borja and Briones were issued. The BIA's decision did not refer to either opinion, however, even though Deloso referred to both in his brief on appeal. 2 . Deloso’s counsel stated at oral argument that no such emblem was found with the barong tagalog. Because Sixto Deloso testified that there was, however, we shall assume that counsel overlooked his testimony in that regard. 3 . Although the IJ did not explicitly rule as to whether Deloso had met the other requirements for demonstrating past persecution, the IJ appears to have done so implicitly and the government has urged us to address these two requirements as well. Cf. INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (<HOLDING>). 4 . We recognize that document fraud from
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 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 in the first instance 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