the Konjubal tribe. Second, Tomas-Mateo argued that she suffered persecution when the local police refused to protect her from gang attacks because she was a member of the Konjubal tribe. In her brief to this court, TomasMateo abandoned the first ground but not the second. We therefore do not address the first ground. As to the second ground, TomasMateo argues that, although she raised the argument in her brief to the BIA, the BIA failed to address it . We agree, and as we said in Sagaydak v. Gonzales, the BIA is “not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.” 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, remand is appropriate for the BIA to consider this issue in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Tomas-Mateo contends that the BIA
holding that the court will not remand if i the basis for the remand is an instruction to consider documentary evidence that was not in the record before the bia and ii the agency regulations set forth procedures to reopen a case before the bia for the taking of additional evidence holding that the bia rule is reasonable holding that this court must remand to the bia to allow it to address in the first instance an issue that it has not yet considered holding that where issues were not considered by the bia remand is appropriate holding that any inherent power to remand to the bia for the consideration of additional evidence should not be exercised where i the basis for the remand is an instruction to consider documentary evidence that was not in the record before the bia and ii the agency regulations set forth procedures to reopen a case before the bia for the taking of additional evidence