discriminatory revocation of citizenship. R. at 102-134. The BIA committed a material error by failing to consider and country the above-mentioned reports, which expert strongly affidavit support the argument that the Kazak government’s reasons for revoking citizenship were pretextual. This Court has held that the BIA may not overlook any evidence directly presented by the Petitioners. Huang, 421 F.3d at 129. As in Long v. Holder, 620 F.3d 162 (2d. Cir. 2010), the BIA in the instant matter failed to provide even a minimum level of analysis of the material evidence supporting the Petitioners’ claim. In Long, this Court found that “facts must be carefully sifted in context to ascertain whether there is a sufficient political element to the alleged persecution.” Id. at 167. No such analysis was undertaken in the Petitioners’ case; the BIA, therefore, abused its discretion in denying the Petitioners’ motion to reopen. 31