088 2688We review the Iiato udges cual dg that there is o evidece establishg ha the resodets ther is kow as Rajesh ave r cear error
Ce error revew sscaly dereal" o the ier o c ad recudes reversal eve i he reviewigauthority vews e evdece derely o he ct der.
See Concrete Pipe
Products of Cal., Inc v Consuction Laborers Pension Trust Fund for
508 S 602 623 (993);
Anderson v Ci of Bessemer Ci
40 S 564, 534 (985)I oer words, wherehere e wo essibe views o the evidece, the c ders choice betwee the s o cle eor
See Anderson v Ci of essemer Ci,
at 54 Accordgly order toreverse a actual deteriatio, he apellae body mus, uo cosderatio o e etireevidece," be le wth the dee d covicto ha a stake has bee coted"
See United States v United Sttes Gypsum Co
333 S. 364 395 (948)Alough we exress o oo as to he sucecyo the resodets evdece seekig toestabsh tha Yogesh adya ad Rajesh ave are he sae erso, we disce clear eor i theImgrao Judges dig ha the resodet dd ot preset
evdece reeva o hisquesio (J. at 45) Notaby the resodet preseted testoy o severa dviduals whocaied ha they kew Yogesh adya ad were aware that he soemes used the alas RajeshDave (Tr at 685, 8, 80, 83-93, 980, 04 29-32, 36-3, 3-5 -8 8-89)Moreover, he resode reseed adavs o hs ther ad vous eople who kew hely o establsh a his her aso used he aias Rajesh ave ad docues showg that boYogesh adya ad Rajesh Dave receved ai at 6 oh arde Cour, Roe, eorga (Res ay 4, 200, retral Meoradu at Tab G Res. Ocober 3, 20, retialMeoradu at Tabs BC, E; esp. Oposiio o the Deae o Hoed Secritys(HSs) Motio to reet at ab B) I dg that o evidece was reseed themato Judge did o acowedge e preseatio o e regog tesoy ddocuets, or did she rerece the evidece rovded by he resode i explaig why t wasisuce r he respode o carry his burde eslshig he s gradthered by heabor cericaio ed o Rajesh Daves behaAs a resul, we cocude tha he Imgrao Judges decsio is ot supored by adeqateaalyss exlaig the reasos r her ultae deteriao ha he resode dd o cayhsburde o roo o demosate tha he s a gradthered ale.
See Matter of -P
22 I&Nec468 43 (BIA 999) (vestig the Iigratio udge wh he resposiblity r esurigthesubstave coleteess o the deciso")
Mer of MP
20 IN ec 86 (BIA 994).Accordigy, read o the record s ecess o aow he Iiatio Judge to ake ese
e review dgs o ct icludig credbility dgs, r clear eor.
8 CR§003 (d)(3)()
see also Mater of JYC
24 I&N ec. 260 (BI 200);
Matter of SH
23 &N ec. 462 (BA 2002) We revew quesos o law, dscreio, or judge, ad allother issues
de novo ee
8 CR. § 003 ( d)(3)(i).
e resodet also preseted additoal evidece o aeal aimed a carryg hs burde o proo (Res. Bre a Tabs B). As a appeate body, we cao cosder ts evdece
8C.R § 003(d)(3)(v);
Matter of Fedorenk
9 & ec 5 (BA 984) However, gh o our dsposo o ths aer, alhough he respode has o exlaed how thisevidece s ew ad revously uavaable, e Igao Judge may cosider he documesd ay other evdece he paries wish o prese i he couse o readed roceedgs
Cite as: Nishad Yogesh Pandya, A088 276 788 (BIA Aug. 22, 2013)