side effects that Dr. Johnson... minimized.” Hr’g Tr., at 129 (5/28/99). Although Dr. Johnson testified that she believes the defendant has a 70-75% likelihood of becoming competent through the treatment she has proposed, the record does not indicate that the hearing examiner considered any evidence at all regarding the treatment’s likelihood of success. Because the Staff Representative failed to present any evidence or witnesses in support of the defendant’s position and indeed failed to conduct any search for witnesses or such evidence, the hearing examiner made his decision based exclusively on Dr. Johnson’s testimony and evidence. Therefore, the Court will remand' this decision to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See Esch v. Yeutter, 876 F.2d at 993 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED
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 remand to agency was appropriate upon finding of procedural defectiveness holding that where issues were not considered by the bia remand is appropriate holding 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 a party waives remand on the basis of a procedural defect by filing a motion to remand more than thirty days after the case is removed