IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60110

Summary Calendar

XIAFEI CHEN, also known as Xia Fei Chen,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A205 727 183

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Xiafei Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the Board of 

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

proceedings. Chen filed her motion to reopen more than 90 days after the BIA’s 

final order in the removal proceedings. Chen argues that the BIA erred in 

concluding that she failed to demonstrate changed country conditions in China. 

She also argues that she is prima facie eligible for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because the 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 8, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60110 Document: 00513983257 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2017
No. 16-60110

2

evidence in the record demonstrates widespread repression and persecution of 

Christians and unregistered church groups in China. 

The denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed “under a highly deferential 

abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 

(5th Cir. 2009). The BIA’s decision will be upheld “as long as it is not 

capricious, without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that 

it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Id.

Ordinarily, a motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after 

the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(c)(2). However, the time bar does not apply if the motion is based on 

“changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country 

to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was 

not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous 

hearing.” § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

The evidence submitted by Chen reflects a continuation of religious 

suppression in China that existed at the time of Chen’s immigration 

proceedings. The continuation of persecution during the relevant time period 

does not qualify as material change. Gotora v. Holder, 567 F. App’x 219, 222 

(5th Cir. 2014); Zhang v. Holder, 487 F. App’x 949, 951-52 (5th Cir. 2012). 

Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by determining that the 

evidence did not establish a material change in country conditions. See GomezPalacios, 560 F.3d at 358. Because Chen has failed to show that the BIA 

abused its discretion in determining that she had failed to establish changed 

country conditions, this court need not examine her argument that she is prima 

facie eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. See

Iqbal v. Holder, 519 F. App’x 243, 244 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the petition 

for review is DENIED.

 Case: 16-60110 Document: 00513983257 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2017