110, 112 (2d Cir.2009) (finding no error in agency’s pattern and practice finding when its determination was supported by country conditions evidence in the record). Although the Ahmeds claim that the BIA impermissibly made findings of fact, this Court has recognized that the BIA will engage in fact-finding when considering relevant evidence of country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168; see also Li Yong Cao, 421 F.3d at 156. In addition, although the Ahmeds claim that the BIA failed to meaningfully consider all of their evidence, a review of the record reveals that the BIA considered the Ahmeds’ evidence, as it explicitly listed the content of the articles submitted. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for
holding that once the defendant is before the court the court will not inquire into the circumstances surrounding his presence there holding that the totality of the circumstancesthe whole picturemust be taken into account holding that appellate court may presume trial court took judicial no tice of its own record and that trial court record in that case supported prejudice element holding that the court will presume that an ij has taken into account all of the evidence before him unless the record eompellingly suggests otherwise recognizing that the bia must defer to the factual findings of the ij unless they are clearly erroneous