[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-11044

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A072-453-654

WEN BIN ZENG,

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(January 31, 2014)

Before PRYOR, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-11044 Date Filed: 01/31/2014 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Wen Bin Zeng, 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. Specifically, Zeng sought to 

reopen her removal proceedings on the basis that, beginning in 2011, Chinese 

officials increased their persecution of members of unregistered churches in 

Liaoning Province. On appeal, Zeng argues the BIA’s conclusion that she failed to 

demonstrate materially changed country conditions was arbitrary and that the BIA 

failed to consider much of the evidence she submitted in support of her motion to 

reopen. After review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we 

deny the petition.1

The BIA’s conclusion that Zeng failed to establish changed country 

conditions in China was not arbitrary or capricious. The 2002 and 2003 Country 

Reports, the 2004 International Religious Freedom Report, and the 1998 Asylum 

Profile indicated that prior to and during 2004, the Chinese government subjected 

unregistered churches and their members to threats, repression, harassment, 

detention, and, at times, physical abuse. Nothing in the record supports Zeng’s 

assertion that, because these reports did not explicitly discuss the treatment of

members of unregistered churches in Liaoning Province, no persecution of 

 1 We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Jiang v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). “Our review is limited to determining whether the 

BIA exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Id.

Case: 13-11044 Date Filed: 01/31/2014 Page: 2 of 4 
3

members of unregistered churches occurred in that province at the time of her 2004 

hearing. 

The evidence Zeng submitted in support of her motion to reopen, moreover,

did not establish that the Chinese government’s treatment of unregistered churches 

and their members materially changed between 2004 and 2011. See Zhang v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that to obtain 

reopening of her removal proceedings, an alien must demonstrate changed country 

conditions with evidence that is material and was not available and that would not 

have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding). In light of China’s 

longstanding restrictions on religion and sustained practice of harassing and 

detaining unregistered religious groups, the fact that Chinese officials in 2011 

conducted at least one raid on a house church in Liaoning Province does not 

demonstrate that conditions for members of unregistered churches materially 

changed in that locale.

The BIA also adequately considered all of the evidence Zeng submitted in 

support of her motion. In its decision, the BIA listed the evidence Zeng submitted 

and explained that it viewed those documents in conjunction with the record 

evidence at the time of Zeng’s 2004 hearing. Based on those documents, the BIA 

concluded that the Chinese government continues to restrict religious groups and to 

repress unregistered churches and their members. Finally, the BIA’s decision to 

Case: 13-11044 Date Filed: 01/31/2014 Page: 3 of 4 
4

afford reduced weight to the letters from Zeng’s in-laws and friends was not 

arbitrary or capricious. The letters describe two raids on church gatherings and 

bible studies, but, as the BIA noted, none of the letters provide the locations of 

those gatherings. As such, the letters were of minimal probative value. 

Zeng failed to establish materially changed country conditions with respect 

to the treatment of unregistered churches and their members, and her motion to 

reopen was therefore untimely. See Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 

1256-57 (11th Cir. 2009); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)(ii). Accordingly, the BIA did 

not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen her removal proceedings.2

 

PETITION DENIED. 

 2 Because we conclude Zeng failed to establish changed country conditions, it is 

unnecessary for us to consider the BIA’s alternative holding that Zeng failed to establish a prima

facie case for relief.

Case: 13-11044 Date Filed: 01/31/2014 Page: 4 of 4