of persecution.” Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 796. Mohammed changed the legal landscape in two ways. First, it characterized the harm of already-performed FGM as permanent and continuing persecution. Id. at 800. Prior caselaw had focused on the actual procedure of FGM, rather than the stigma and lasting physical and psychological impacts, as persecution. See Kasinga, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 365. Second, Mohammed created an irrebuttable presumption that women who suffered already-performed FGM had a well founded fear of future persecution in their home countries. Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 801. Within two months of the Mohammed decision, while Mr. MuriuM’s appeal to the BIA was pending, Mrs. Mwangi filed a Motion for Remand. (Mrs. Mwangi was a derivative applicant on her husband’s application.) ir.2004) (<HOLDING>). We remand to the BIA to consider in the first
holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the bia to fail to consider the merits of a petitioners claim holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by giving summary consideration to evidence presented in a motion to reopen particularly when dealing with evidence which the bia is asked to repeatedly consider