Indonesia do not rise to the level of past persecution. See id. at 1016-17. To the extent the IJ found that Yuliana’s experiences were not on account of a protected ground, this finding is not supported by substantial evidence. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). After the IJ’s decision and before the BIA’s decision, this court issued its opinion in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2004). In her brief to the BIA, Yuliana argued that she is a member of a disfavored group under Sael. Because the BIA streamlined and did not consider her argument, we remand Yuliana’s asylum and withholding claims to the agency to determine Sael’s application in this case. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. **
holding deference to agency methodology appropriate unless agency failed to address an essential factor 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 when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address in the first instance holding that a court of appeals should remand a case to an agency for decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands holding that this court has discretion to either address or remand arguments presented to it in the first instance provided it otherwise has jurisdiction over the claim