The petitioner claimed that the Agency erred in concluding that he did not meet his burden to establish eligibility for a particular application that he filed. He argued that the record revealed multiple potential bases for establishing eligibility and, in light of intervening case law, the Court should remand for further consideration. He also highlighted problems with the transcript of expert witness testimony.
The Court found multiple bases for potential eligibility that needed to be considered in light of its intervening precedential case law. The Court also noted that the “exceptionally poor quality” of the transcript of the expert’s testimony made the Court’s review impossible and ordered the Agency to re-transcribe that testimony before re-examining the petitioner’s application.