stay in another country, that regulation was repealed several years before Lin’s hearing, and stays in third countries are now relevant only to the analysis of whether an alien was firmly resettled under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.15. The IJ did not address that issue here. See Tandia v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 245, 248-49 (2d Cir. 2006). Moreover, there is no evidence that Lin received “an offer of permanent resident status, citizenship, or some other type of permanent resettlement” in Mexico so that he could be considered firmly resettled pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.15. Given the errors identified above, we must remand because we cannot “state with confidence” that the agency would reach the same result absent these errors. Cf. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 434 F.3d 144, 162 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the case must be remanded. For
holding that appellate court may affirm ruling where trial court reached right result for wrong reason as long as alternate basis for affirmance was presented to trial court and no further factual findings are necessary recognizing our authority to affirm sentence despite procedural error where record clearly reveals that court would have reached same result and sentence is substantively reasonable holding there was not plain error because a different result probably would not have been reached absent the trial courts alleged error holding that sentencing error did not affect defendants substantial rights because error did not result in longer term of imprisonment holding that affirmance is appropriate where the identified error clearly did not alter the result reached