gave undeserved weight to the fact that the Democratic Party had been elected by popular referendum, since, as his own decision reflects, the Democratic Party rose to power in 1992 and then lost control in 1997. Third, while the IJ properly considered the most recent Country Report and Profile, he neglected to compare them with the reports for 2000, and never tested the accuracy of any of these reports in light of the evidence supporting Smajlaj’s claims. Because the IJ never made a proper finding that Albania had undergone a “fundamental change in circumstances” since October 2000, and because the BIA’s decision does not address this critical omission, we conclude that remand is necessary for further consideration. See Yang v. McElroy, 277 F.3d 158, 162-63 (2d Cir.2002) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Upon remand, the BIA may consider the most
holding that denial of remand was proper where plaintiff failed to raise the proper objection holding that remand for new trial is remedy for factual insufficiency of evidence holding preponderance of the evidence must be against a claim before the claim can be denied where factual record is insufficient remand required holding that remand is the proper course for handling a case where the factual record is incomplete holding that it is appropriate to remand to the plan administrator when the administrative record is incomplete