# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 42 79

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Cai m in Li

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Je ffer so n B . Ses si on s, II I

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Octo be r 26 , 20 17 Fi le d: Octo be r 31 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM. In 20 16 , Ch in es e ci ti zen Cai m in Li so ug ht to reo pe n hi s rem ov al pr oc eed in gs ba se d on ch an ge d co un try co nd it io ns in Ch in a. See 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(C) (i) , (ii ) (m ot io n t o reo pe n to ap pl y fo r as y lu m rel ie f can be fil ed at an y ti m e, if m ot io n is ba se d on m at eri al , no t pr ev io us ly av ai la bl e or di sc ov erab le , ev id en ce of ch an ge d

co un try co nd it io ns in co un try of na ti on al it y or to whi ch rem ov al was or de red ). The Bo ard of Im

m ig rat io n App eal s (BIA) ag reed wit h th e Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e (IJ ) th at Li’sev id en ce di d no t sh ow ch an ge d co nd it io ns , an d Li pe ti ti on s for rev ie w of th e BIA’s

or de r. W e rev ie w th e ch al le ng ed or de r un de r a hi gh ly de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd

. See Lin Yun Lin v. Mu ka se y , 52 6 F.3 d 11 64 , 11 65 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 8 ). Li

co nt en ds th at th e de ni al of hi s req ue st was an ab us e of di sc ret io n, arg ui ng th at th e ag en cy (1 ) fai le d to co ns id er th e en ti re reco rd , in pa rti cu la r 2 0 12 an d 20 14 rep or ts fro m th e Co ng res si on al -Exe cu ti ve Co m m is si on on Ch in a th at Li ci te d, bu t di d no t

su bm it , an d un da te d m ed ia art ic le s; an d (2 ) “ch e r r y -p ic ke d” th e ev id en ce it di d

c o n s id er. He fu rth er co nt en ds th e reco rd co nt ai ne d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce th a t

co nd it io ns fo r Ch ris ti an s in Ch in a who at te nd ed le ga l, un reg is te red ch ur ch es an d
pr os el y ti zed ot he rs , ha d m at eri al ly ch an ge d si nc e he was or de red rem ov ed in 20 12

. 1

W e fin d no m eri t in Li’s co nt en ti o n s

. Th e a ge nc y ’s de ci si on refl ect s th at it

co ns id ered al l of th e ev id en ce be fo re it , an d th e BIA w as no t requ ire d to pr ov id e an

ex pl ic it an al y si s of th e su bm it te d do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce. See Om on di v. Hol de r, 67 4 F.3 d 79 3, 80 1- 02 (8 th Ci r

. 2 01 2) (ag en cy m us t pr ov id e reas on s sp eci fic en ou gh to
pe rm it rev ie w; ho wev er, BIA ne ed no t li st ev ery po ss ib le po si ti ve an d ne ga ti ve fact or in it s de ci si on ). Fu rth er, th e BIA was no t req ui red to co ns id er th e un su bm it te d 20 12

an d 20 14 rep or ts , be cau se (1 ) it was Li’s res po ns ib il it y to su pp ly ev id en ce su pp or ti ng hi s m ot io n; an d (2 ) m or e im po rta nt , th e Co m

m is si on ’s 20 15 rep or t an d th e St at e Dep art m en t’s 20 14 In te rn at io na l Rel ig io us Free do m Rep or t, up on whi ch th e BIA ba se d it s de te rm in a t i o n , co nt ai ne d th e m os t cu rren t an d rel ev an t in fo rm at io n reg ard in g th e ci rcu m st an ces in Ch in a w h e n Li m ov ed to reo pe n in 20 16

. See 8 U.S

. C

. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(B) (m ot io n to reo pe n pr oc eed in gs ba se d on ch an ge d co un try

co nd it io ns sh al l st at e ne w fact s th at wil l be pr ov en at he ari ng an d sh al l be su pp or te d by affi da vi ts or ot he r ev id en ti ary m at eri al ); Bert e v. Ash cro ft, 39 6 F.3 d 99 3, 99 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (BIA’s fu nc ti on is to rev ie w reco rd , no t crea te it ; BIA wil l rem an d on ly if

In li gh t of th e BIA’s in de pe nd en t, di sp os it iv e gr ou nd fo r it s de ci si on , we ne ed 1

no t ad dr es s Li’s arg um en t th at he is pr im a f a c i e e l i g ib le fo r rel ie f. See INS v. Bag am as ba d, 4 29 U.S. 24 , 25 -2 6 (1 97 6)

. -2

-pr ev io us ly un av ai la bl e ev id en ce sa ti sf ie s BIA th at ne w ev id en ce wou ld li ke ly ch an ge

cas e res ul t i f pr oc eed in gs be fo re IJ were re op en ed ).

Fi na ll y , we co nc lu de th at th e BIA di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Li’s

m ot io n to reo pe n, be cau se Li fai le d to sh ow a m at eri al ch an ge in co un try co nd it io ns

. See Mart in ez v. Ly

nc h, 78 5 F .3d 12 62 , 12 65 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (ex pl ai ni ng whe n BIA ab us es it di sc ret io n)

. Sp eci fic al ly, we fin d t h a t Li ’s ev id en ce of th e Ch in es e go ve rn m en t’s su pp res si on of r e l i gi ou s free do m , an d it s tre at m en t of un reg is te red ch ur ch es in 20 14 an d 20 15 , refl ect ed co un try co nd it io ns su bs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar to th os e whe n Li was rem ov ed in 20 12

. See Zeah v. Ly nc h, 82 8 F.3 d 69 9, 70 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (h ol di ng th at ev id en ce refl ect in g co nd it io ns su bs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar to th os e th at ex is te d

a t ti m e of rem ov al pr oc eed in gs do no t sh ow ch an ge in co un try co nd it io ns )

. Th e pe ti ti on is de ni ed . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-