N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT XIAO YAN LIN, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-70212 Age n c y No. A095-648-447 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 2, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, PAEZ, a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc u it Judge s. Xia o Ya n Lin (“ Lin” ) pe titions for re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de nia l of he r m otion to re ope n. W e de ny the pe tition. Lin originally

a pplie d for a sy l um

in 2003, c la i m ing tha

t she ha d fle d C hina to e s c a pe a m arria ge arrange d to sa

tisfy he r fathe r’ s de bt. The Im m i gration Judge 

# FIL ED FEB 12 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).(“ IJ” ) de n ie d Lin’ s a pplic ation. In 2011, Lin file d a n untim e ly

m otion to re ope n, c la im ing tha

t she c onve rte d

to Prote sta

ntism a fte r a rriving in the

Unite d State s, a

nd that she fe are d re ligious perse c ution if forc e d to re turn to C hina . 8 U.S.C . § 1229a . 1. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion by

c onc luding tha

t Lin fa ile d to de m onstra

te c ha n ge d c o untry

c o nditions in China

tha t would e xc u s e the untim e l ine ss of he r m otion. Se eMov sisian v . Ashc roft , 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th C ir. 2005) (holding tha

t the de n ia l of a

m otion to re ope n is re vie we d for a buse of disc re tion). TheB IA re a sona bly found tha

t pe rse c ution of Prote sta

nts likeLin wa s ongoing but had not inc re a se d in C hina be twe e n 2003 a

nd 2011. TheB IA re lie d on c ountry

c o ndition reports from

2009 a nd 2010, whic h sta

te d tha t the C h ine se gove rnm e nt “ c ontinue d” to re pre ss c e rta i n Prote sta nt groups. Lin did pre se nt som e e vide nc e tha

t pe rse c ution inc re a se d during a nd a fte r the 2008 Oly

m pic s in B e ijing. Give n the c onflic ting e vide nc e , howe ve r, we c annot re j e c t a s “ arbitra

ry ” the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t the re wa s no inc re a se in the pe rse c ution of Prote sta nts. Ontiv e ros-Lope

z v . IN S. , 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th C ir. 2000) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). 2. Lin’ s a dditional c ha lle n ge s to theB IA’ s de c i sion a lso fa il. First, the B IA did not m isc ha

ra c te riz e Lin’ s m otion to re ope n a s ba s e d sole ly on c ha nge d pe rsona l c irc um s ta nc e s . R athe r, the B IA sa

tisfie d this c ourt’ s holding in 2014 tha t “ i f the re 2is suffic ie nt e vide nc e of c ha nge d c onditions in the

re c e iving c ountry , the re is nothing in the

pla in la n gua g e of the re gula

tion tha t pre ve nts a

pe titione r from re fe rring to his persona l c irc um sta nc e s to e sta

blish the m ate ria lity

of tha t e vide nc e .” C

handra v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1034, 1037 (9th C ir. 2014). TheB IA prope rly de nie d Lin’ s m otion dueto the la c k of e vide nc e de m o nstra ting c ha nge d c ountry c onditions re l ating to her c onve rsion to Prote sta ntism . Se c ond, theB IA suffic i e ntly

a sse sse d Lin’ s e vide nc e of c ha nge d c ountry c onditions. N a jmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010) (re je c ting theargum e nt tha

t “ whe re the B IA ha s give n re a sone d c o nside ration to the pe tition, a

nd m a de a de quate findings, it m u st e xpre s sly

pa rse or re fute on the re c ord e a c h individual a rgum e nt or pie c e of e vide nc e offe re d by

the pe titione r” ) (quoting W ang v . BIA , 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d C ir. 2006). Third, the

B IA did not a

b use its disc re tion whe n it disc ounte d a fly e r a lle ge dly re c e ive d by

Lin’ s a unt in C hina , be c a

u s e tha t fly e r wa s “ unsigne d a

nd una uthe ntic ate d.” Pe tition DE NIE D.

3