Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); INA § 240(c) (7) (C) (ii). Regarding the “material” element of the exception, we have explained that an alien who attempts to show that evidence is material to his removal proceedings “bears a ‘heavy burden/ and must ‘present! ] evidence of such a nature that the [BIA] is satisfied that if proceedings before the [IJ] were reopened, with all attendant delays, the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case.’ ” Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 813 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The instant motion is both time-and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the bia does not err by denying a motion to reopen without an opposition from the government (B) holding the bia did not err in denying aliens motion to stay voluntary departure period pending determination on the motion to reopen (C) holding that the bia did not err in putting the burden of proof to demonstrate grounds for granting a motion to reopen on the alien (D) holding that bia did not err in denying motion to reopen that was filed after expiration of aliens voluntary departure period because alien had failed to depart (E) holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment
Output (English): holding that bia did not err in denying motion to reopen that was filed after expiration of aliens voluntary departure period because alien had failed to depart