individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner.” Id. at 268 (quoting Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir.2006)). In particular, the BIA is not required to address evidence that is plainly immaterial. What is required is that the BIA consider all relevant evidence and provide an adequate basis from which we are able “to discern its reasons for declining to afford relief to a petitioner.” Id.; see also Huang v. Att’y Gen., 620 F.3d 372, 391 (3d Cir.2010) (remanding where BIA failed to consider evidence that was both material and previously unavailable); Guo v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 109, 115 (2d Cir.2006) (finding an abuse of discretion where the BIA failed to consider documents that were “self-evidently material”); Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 81 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). The burden is on the
holding that in evaluating evidence of changed country conditions the bia compares the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below holding that for purposes of claim 4 another country means a country other than the first and second country explicitly rejecting tpllcs proposed construction holding that bia did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider an unauthenticated document submitted with a motion to reopen to show changed country conditions holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions holding that the bia has a duty to explicitly consider country conditions evidence that materially bears on his claim