Rather, the inquiry focuses on whether, within its exercise of such "independent judgment," the BIA considered new evidence offered on appeal. On occasion, the BIA itself has accepted new evidence presented on appeal. See, e.g., Charlesworth, 966 F.2d at 1325 (observing that BIA affirmed IJ decision after considering a letter that the INS submitted with its appellate brief); Hazzard, 951 F.2d at 437 (observing that BIA affirmed IJ decision after considering evidence that the applicant had requested be submitted with its appellate brief); Matter of Godfrey, 13 I. N. Dec. 790, 791 (BIA 1971) ("[W]e ordinarily confine our review to a consideration of the record alone, although in exceptional cases we do receive and consider additional affidavits or other documents not previously available."); Matterof Ss. Captain Demosthenes, 13 I. N. Dec. 345, 346 n. 1 (BIA 1969) (accepting evidence submitted after the IJ decision). The BIA also, on occasion, remanded the proceeding or reopened the matter for consideration of new evidence by an IJ. See, e.g., Matter of Li, 21 I. N. Dec. 13, 18-19 (BIA 1995) (remanding proceedings after evaluating new evidence that was submitted on appeal. "Ordinarily, we would not consider evidence first offered on appeal. However, in this instance the issue to which this evidence pertains was understandably not focused on below. . . ."); Matter of Pena-Diaz, 20 I. N. Dec. 841, 845-46 (BIA 1994) (granting motion to reopen and remanding for consideration of extreme hardship in light of the equities accrued by respondent during the years INS "has affirmatively permitted the alien to remain" by failing to enforce final deportation order); Matter of Flores-Gonzalez, 11 I. N. Dec. 485, 488 (BIA 1966) (remanding for consideration of whether respondent established good moral character from "the date of the filing of his applicati

While the BIA often chooses to limit review to the evidence presented before the IJ, it has and does review new evidence submitted on appeal, and not only by taking administrative notice of commonly known facts, as the majority suggests. See, e.g., Matter of Li, 21 I N Dec. 13, 18 (BIA 1995) (reviewing, on appeal, evidence regarding the legal effect of the termination of adoption in China); Matter of Godfrey, 13 I N Dec. 790, 791 n. 1 (BIA 1971) ("in exceptional cases [the BIA will] receive and consider additional affidavits or other documents not previously available"); Matter of Ss. Captain Demosthenes, 13 I N Dec. 345, 346 n. 1 (BIA 1969) (considering new evidence mitigating fine for violation of INA § 254(a)(2)). The BIA has been upheld both when it decided to consider new evidence not presented to the IJ, Hazzard v. INS, 951 F.2d 435, 440 (1st Cir. 1991), and when it decided not to consider new evidence, Ghassan v. INS, 972 F.2d 631, 638 (5th Cir. 1992).

Finally, while the BIA made supplemental findings, we perceive no sound basis, either in law or reason, for concluding that the BIA was thereby disabled from upholding the immigration judge's decision. The BIA "has full power to determine factual issues in cases before it," 1 C. Gordon S. Mailman, Immigration Law and Procedure, § 3.05[5][b] at p. 3-57; see, e.g., Matter of B., 7 I. N. Dec. 1, 14 (BIA 1956), and may consider new evidence not presented to the immigration judge, Matter of Demosthenes, 13 I. N. Dec. 345, 346 n. 1 (BIA 1969); Matter of Godfrey, 13 I. N. Dec. 790, 791 n. 1 (BIA 1971). Moreover, at least in cases where no new ground for deportation is presented, see, e.g., Matter of Rios-Carrillo, 10 I. N. Dec. 291 (BIA 1963) (remanding after presentation of new ground for deportation), the BIA may uphold an immigration judge's decision even after considering new evidence in favor of petitioner, see, e.g., Matter of Reyes, 16 I. N. Dec. 475 (BIA 1978) (affirming decision by District Director after considering legal memoranda and affidavit of foreign lawyer).