within the country of removal ... [and][o]ther relevant information regarding conditions in the country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(iii) & (iv); see also Kamalthas, 251 F.3d at 1283 (stating that all relevant evidence must be considered, “even apart from any prior findings in the asylum context”). Here, the record indicated that members of Javed’s political party were subject to torture by the Pakistani government. The State Department profile reported that Pakistan’s police had “committed numerous extrajudicial killings and tortured, abused, and raped citizens,” including participating in violent attacks on Javed’s political party. We conclude that the IJ abused his discretion by resolving Javed’s CAT claim without considering this evidence. See Kamalthas, 251 F.3d at 1280 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we remand with in- structions
holding that the board abused its discretion in failing to recognize that country conditions alone can play a decisive role in granting relief under the convention holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions holding in part that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction in the absence of a showing that the plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy at law holding that in evaluating evidence of changed country conditions the bia compares the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below holding that the court abused its discretion where the delay cannot not reasonably be attributed to the plaintiff alone