United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-4279

___________________________

Caimin Li

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Jefferson B. Sessions, III

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: October 26, 2017

Filed: October 31, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

In 2016, Chinese citizen Caimin Li sought to reopen his removal proceedings

based on changed country conditionsin China. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), (ii)

(motion to reopen to apply for asylum relief can be filed at any time, if motion is

based on material, not previously available or discoverable, evidence of changed

country conditions in country of nationality or to which removal was ordered). The

Board ofImmigration Appeals (BIA) agreed with the Immigration Judge (IJ) that Li’s
evidence did not show changed conditions, and Li petitions for review of the BIA’s

order. We review the challenged order under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard. See Lin Yun Lin v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1164, 1165 (8th Cir. 2008). Li

contends that the denial of his request was an abuse of discretion, arguing that the

agency (1) failed to consider the entire record, in particular 2012 and 2014 reports

from the Congressional-Executive Commission on China that Li cited, but did not

submit, and undated media articles; and (2) “cherry-picked” the evidence it did

consider. He further contends the record contained sufficient evidence that

conditions for Christians in China who attended legal, unregistered churches and

proselytized others, had materially changed since he was ordered removed in 2012.

1

We find no merit in Li’s contentions. The agency’s decision reflects that it

considered all of the evidence before it, and the BIA was not required to provide an

explicit analysis of the submitted documentary evidence. See Omondi v. Holder, 674

F.3d 793, 801-02 (8th Cir. 2012) (agency must provide reasons specific enough to

permit review; however, BIA need not list every possible positive and negative factor

in its decision). Further, the BIA was not required to consider the unsubmitted 2012

and 2014 reports, because (1) it was Li’s responsibility to supply evidence supporting

his motion; and (2) more important, the Commission’s 2015 report and the State

Department’s 2014 International Religious Freedom Report, upon which the BIA

based its determination, contained the most current and relevant information

regarding the circumstances in China when Li moved to reopen in 2016. See 8

U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B) (motion to reopen proceedings based on changed country

conditions shall state new facts that will be proven at hearing and shall be supported

by affidavits or other evidentiary material); Berte v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 993, 997 (8th

Cir. 2005) (BIA’s function is to review record, not create it; BIA will remand only if

In light of the BIA’s independent, dispositive ground for its decision, we need 1

not address Li’s argument that he is prima facie eligible for relief. See INS v.

Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976).

-2-
previously unavailable evidence satisfies BIA that new evidence would likely change

case result if proceedings before IJ were reopened).

Finally, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Li’s

motion to reopen, because Li failed to show a material change in country conditions. 

See Martinez v. Lynch, 785 F.3d 1262, 1265 (8th Cir. 2015) (explaining when BIA

abuses it discretion). Specifically, we find that Li’s evidence of the Chinese

government’s suppression of religious freedom, and its treatment of unregistered

churchesin 2014 and 2015, reflected country conditionssubstantially similar to those

when Li wasremoved in 2012. See Zeah v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 699, 704 (8th Cir. 2016)

(holding that evidence reflecting conditionssubstantially similar to those that existed

at time of removal proceedings do not show change in country conditions). The

petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-3-