“[E]ven a ten percent chance of persecution may establish a well-founded fear.” Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.2001); see also INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 440, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Considering now the State Department Country Reports submitted by Zhou addressing forced sterilization — reports that the IJ did not consider when it found Zhou’s fear of future persecution incredible and that the BIA did not consider on review — that probability of future persecution exists here. Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 705 (9th Cir.2010) (“The failure of the IJ and BIA to consider evidence of country conditions [consisting of a State Department country report] constitutes reversible error.”); Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143, 1147-48 (9th
holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen 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 does not abuse its discretion by giving summary consideration to evidence presented in a motion to reopen particularly when dealing with evidence which the bia is asked to repeatedly consider 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 in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it