Mata’s testimony that it would be too hard to hold someone down and tattoo him, and that gang members are proud of their tattoos. In doing so, the BIA ignored Dr. Serpas’ testimony that Cordova was embarrassed by his blurry, distorted tattoos. The agency also ignored Cordova’s testimony that he was involuntarily tattooed at gunpoint while tied to a chair, obviating as irrelevant the suggestion one could not involuntarily tattoo someone by just holding him down. Further, there is no inherent inconsistency between gang members’ pride in gang tattoos and a desire that all gang members, including those forcibly inducted, wear them. As BIA’s a 87, 126 S.Ct. 1613, 164 L.Ed.2d 358 (2006) (per curiam) and INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). The BIA should consider the issue on remand.
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 in the first instance to address 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 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 when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address it in the first instance