U.S. 29, 43 (1983). Nevertheless, the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its actions, including a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Id. at 43. This Court has found an abuse of discretion where the agency’s reasoning is sufficiently flawed. Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008)(the BIA erred by assuming that past persecution was a one-time event and in failing to consider other forms of persecution). This Court also has found abuse of discretion when the BIA issued a three sentence denial devoid of reasoning and that “failed to account for the substantial evidence” relating to the Petitioners’ changed country conditions claim. Norani v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2006). Finally, the BIA may abuse its discretion if it ignores pertinent facts or fails to provide an opportunity 20 to provide an