[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-16482

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A079-683-171

YIN CHAN CHEN, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(July 10, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-16482 Date Filed: 07/10/2013 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Yin Chan Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of her motion to reopen her removal 

proceedings based on changed country conditions. After review, we deny Chen’s 

petition.

Chen contends the BIA abused its discretion in denying her motion to 

reopen because it misconstrued the motion as being based on changed personal 

circumstances, instead of changed country conditions, and only relied on select 

parts of the evidence, effectively ignoring the favorable portions. Specifically, she

asserts she established there had been an increase in the persecution of those who 

violated China’s family planning laws, and local family planning officials in Fujian 

Province, where she lived, would view her as violating these laws even though her 

children were born abroad. Moreover, she asserts she also established there had 

been an increase in the persecution of Christians in China. Lastly, she contends

she demonstrated prima facie eligibility for relief on account of violating China’s 

one-child policy and her Christian religion. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s motion to reopen 

because she failed to establish changed country conditions in China since her 

removal proceedings in May 2004. See Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 

1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (stating we review the denial of a motion to reopen for an 

abuse of discretion). Because Chen’s motion to reopen was filed eight years after 

Case: 12-16482 Date Filed: 07/10/2013 Page: 2 of 4 
3

her removal order was entered, Chen was required to show “changed country 

conditions arising in [China], if such evidence is material and was not available 

and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 

U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).

Chen’s argument the BIA misconstrued her motion to reopen as one based 

on changed personal circumstances is without merit, as the BIA explicitly 

acknowledged that her motion was one based on changed country conditions, and 

then proceeded to list and discuss the evidence Chen submitted in this regard. 

Subsequently, based on this review, the BIA determined the evidence did not show 

a material change in conditions with respect to the treatment of individuals who 

violated China’s family planning laws, or the treatment of members of unregistered 

Christian churches. We likewise agree Chen failed to demonstrate that, since her 

removal proceedings, there had been an escalation in the enforcement of China’s 

family planning laws by forcible sterilization in Fujian Province, let alone 

increased enforcement targeting repatriated Chinese who had given birth to 

multiple children overseas.1 Her evidence also did not sufficiently demonstrate 

changed country conditions concerning the negative treatment of Christians in 

China. 

 1 Moreover, because Chen’s official documents from various local governments 

regarding China’s family planning policies were not certified or otherwise authenticated, the BIA 

did not abuse its discretion in discounting them. 8 C.F.R. § 1287.6(b); see Yang v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 418 F.3d 1198, 1202-03 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005).

Case: 12-16482 Date Filed: 07/10/2013 Page: 3 of 4 
4

Because Chen did not show materially changed country conditions with 

respect to the use of forcible sterilizations or the treatment of Christians in China, 

she was not entitled to reopen her removal proceedings. Thus, we do not consider 

further whether she established a prima facie case for relief based on either of 

these claims. Accordingly, we deny Chen’s petition. 

PETITION DENIED. 

Case: 12-16482 Date Filed: 07/10/2013 Page: 4 of 4