[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 31 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 88 -5 24 -6 02 QIULING LIN, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 26 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Qiu li ng Lin , a Ch in es e n at io na l, ap pe al s t he Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Case: 11-15318 Date Filed: 09/26/2012 Page: 1 of 6App eal s’s (“ BIA”) de ni al of h er s eco ndm ot io n t o re op enhe r rem ov al

pr oc eed in gs . She co nt en ds th atth e BIA s ho ul d h av e g ran te d h er m ot io n b as edon in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, ar gu in g t ha t h er s ub m is si on s wer e su ffi ci en t t o co m pl y with t he pro cedur al requi rem en ts . She als o a rg ue s tha t the BIA sh ou ld ha ve grant edhe r m ot io n b ecau se of c ha ng edco un try con di ti on s i n C hi na . I. W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enforab us e o f di sc ret io n. Mon ta no Cis ne ro s v. U.S. Att’ y Gen . , 51 4 F .3d12 24 , 12 26 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Thi s rev ie w is li m it edto de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e BIA h as ex erci se d i ts adm in is tra ti ve di sc ret io n a ndwhethe r th e ex erci se of t ha t d is cret io n was arb it rary or cap ric io us . Id. Whe n t he BIA d idno t ex pr es sl y ad op t the im

m ig rat io n ju dg e’s (“ IJ ”) reas on in g, we re vi ew on ly the BIA’s de ci si on . Zh an g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 57 2 F .3d 13 16 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). If a p arty fai ls to m ak e anarg um en t i n i ts op en in g br ie f, we de em

th atarg um en t ab an do ne d. Acces s N ow, Inc . v. So uthw es t Ai rl in es Co . , 38 5 F .3d13 24 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Here we co nc lu de th atth e BIA d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Li n’s m ot io n t o re op enbe cau se , on th is reco rd , no ex cep ti on to th e ti m el in es s an d n um ero si ty requ ire m en ts ap pl ie s. A party m ay

fil e o nl y on e m ot io n t o re op en , whi ch m us t b e fi le d “ no lat er th an90 da y s af

te r th e d at e o n wh ic h t he fin al adm in is tra ti ve de ci si on was re nd ered 2 Case: 11-15318 Date Filed: 09/26/2012 Page: 2 of 6in th e p ro ceed in g s ou gh t t o b e reo pe ne d.” 8 C.F.R . § 1 00 3.2 (c)( 2) . Suc h m ot io ns

are d is fav or ed . Abdi v. U.S. Att’ y Gen . , 43 0 F .3d11 48 , 11 49 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Am on g the gro un ds up on whi chanali enm ay rel y insu cha m ot io n i s i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce o f co un se l. Dak an e v. U.S. At t’yGen. , 39 9 F .3d12 69 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Here, Lin fil eda se co ndm ot io n t o re op enhe r imm ig rat io n p ro ceed in gs in May 201 1. Th is was n earl y two y ears aft er the IJ r en de reda de ci si oninJu ly 200 9 an d, the refo re, ex ceed edth e ti m e li m it at io n s etforthin8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.2 (c)( 2) . Fu rth er, b ecau se Linha d a lre ady fil edon e m ot io n t o re op en , her20 11 m ot io n was al so nu m eri cal ly barre d. 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .2(c )(2 ). Thes e ti m e an d n um eri cal li m it at io ns are n otsubjec t t o e qu it ab le to ll in g i n t hi s ca se . Se e Abdi , 43 0 F .3dat 1 11 50 . There are, h owe ve r, se ve ral ex cep ti on s t o t he on e m ot io n a ndni ne ty day li m it . Se e g en er al ly 8 C .F.R. § 1 00 3.2 (c)( 3) .

Citi ng Abdi and Anin v. Reno , 188 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 1999), the g overnme nt argues 1 that t h e n inety day filing time is mandatory and jurisdictional. We need not decide that question b ec au s e L in’s second moti on to reope n in this case was filed in May 2011, a y ear and ten months afte r the I J ’s J uly 15, 2009 decision. This motion accuse d L in’s attorney of i neff ective assistance of counsel for failing to appea l that J uly 2009 decision. We cannot conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in denying a motion to reope n that is so untimely (base d on conduct almost two year s befor e) and one which provides no adequate explanation of t h e rea sons for the extended delay s. Thus, we need not evaluate whether the BIA corr ectly applied Lozado in holding that L in’s attorney did not rende r ineffe ctive assistance . See Matter ofLozado , 19 I . & N. Dec . 637 (B IA 1988). For the same rea son, there is no need for the rema nd which L in se eks to de velop evidenc e of prejudice from counse l’s perf

ormanc e. 3 Case: 11-15318 Date Filed: 09/26/2012 Page: 3 of 6II.

The ti m e an d n um eri cal li m it at io ns di sc us se d abo ve do no t ap pl y to a m ot io n t o re op enwith n ew ev id en ce “ ba se d o n c ha ng edcir cu m st an ces ari si ng in th e co un try of n at io na li ty . . . if su ch ev id en ce i s m at eri al an d was no t av ai labl e an d c ou ldno t h av e b een di sc ov eredor p res en te d a t the pre vi ou s h eari ng .” 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(C) (ii ); 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .2(c )(3 )(i i). Anali ensee ki ng to sh ow t ha t s uc h e vi de nc e is m at eri al , ho wev er, “be ars a he av y bu rd enan d m

us t pr es en t ev id en ce tha t d em on st rat es th at , if the pro ceed in gs were o pe ne d, the ne w ev id en ce wo ul d l ik el y

ch an ge th e res ul t i n t he cas e.” Ji an g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 56 8 F.3 d 1 25 2, 1 25 6– 57 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). A cha ng e in pe rs on al cir cu m st an ces alo ne do es no t en ti tl e anali ento th is ex cep ti on . Zh an g , 57 2 F .3dat 1 31 9. The BIA h as th e d is cret io n t o d en y a m ot io n t o re op enforat l eas t thr ee reas on s: (1) fai lu re t o e st ab li sha pr ima fa ci e cas e fo r as y lu m or wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al ; (2 ) fai lu re t o i nt ro du ce ev id en ce tha t was m at eri al an d p rev io us ly un av ai labl e; an d (3 ) a d et erm in at io n t ha t d es pi te st atut ory eli gi bi li ty for rel ie f, an al ie n was no t en ti tl edto a fav or ab le ex erci se of d is cret io n. Liv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 48 8 F .3d13 71 , 13 74 -7 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . The BIA is no t re qu ire d t o d is cu ss ev ery pi ece o f ev id en ce p res en te d. Se e Ta n v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 44 6 F .3d13 69 , 13 74 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (rev ie win g a n IJ ’s 4 Case: 11-15318 Date Filed: 09/26/2012 Page: 4 of 6de ni al of a n app li cat io n fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al aft er the BIA ad op te d t he

de ci si on witho utop in io n) . Rath er, i t m us t o nl y “ co ns id er the is su es rai se d a nd an no un ce i ts de ci si oninterm s s uf fic ie ntto en ab le a rev ie win g c ou rt t o p erce iv e th atitha s h eardan d t ho ug htan d n otm erel y reac te d.” Id. (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Howev er, the BIA is requi redto gi ve reas on edco ns id erat io n t o t he ev id en ce an d m ak e “ ad equa te fin di ng s.” Se e Mez vr is hv il i v. U.S. Att’ y Gen ., 46 7 F .3d12 92 , 12 95 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (rem an di ng cas e fo r th e BIA t o m ak e ad equa te fin di ng s) . Fi rs t, Lin ha s ab an do ne d a ny argu m en ts ab ou t the BIA’s co nc lu si on s reg ard in g aut he nt ic at io n o f vi ll ag e d oc um en ts , th e n ot ic e ad dr es se d t o h er, an d le tt ers subm it te d b y

rel at iv es onhe r be ha lf, b ecau se sh e fai le d t o m ak e th em inhe r br ie f. Acces s N

ow, Inc . , 38 5 F .3dat 1 33 0 (“ [T]he la w is by now wel l s ettl edin th is Cir cu itth ata le ga l cl ai m or a rg um en t tha t h as no t b een bri efedbe fo re the co urt i s d eem edab an do ne d a ndit s m eri ts wil l n otbe ad dr es se d.” ). Reg ard in g t he ot he r m at eri al s, i nc lu di ng Sta te Depa rtment c ab le s an d v ari ou s 2 01 0 re po rts , we co nc lu de th atth e BIA d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n c on cl ud in g tha t the se do cu m en ts di d n otsh ow ch an ge d c ou nt ry co nd it io ns . The Sta te Department c ab le s, fo r ex am pl e, do no t p ro vi de an y

in fo rm at io n to sh ow t ha t the co un try con di ti on s i n C hi naha ve ch an ge d b etween20 09 an d 20 11 . Lin s ub m it te d g ov ern m en t cabl es sh owi ng th at“ Ch in a’s co erci ve pra ct ic es 5 Case: 11-15318 Date Filed: 09/26/2012 Page: 5 of 6in cl ud e in vo lu nt ary ab orti on to co nt ro l fe rti li ty andreg ul at e th e p op ul at io n” an d

th ata pr og ram

inCh in a supp orte d o r pa rti ci pa te d “ in th e m an ag em en t o f a pr og ram of c oe rci ve ab orti on res ul ti ng fro m Ch in a’s bi rth li m it at io n p ol ic ie s an d pr act ic es .” Bu t thi s cabl e ap pe ars to ha ve be endra fte d andsen t i n 2 00 2; thus , it can no t s ho w any chan ge d c on di ti on s b etween20 09 -2 01 1. Ad di ti on al ly, th e 2 01 0 Co m m is si on Rep ort s ub m it te d b y Linsh ows th atco erci ve pra ct ic e “ co nt in ue in Ch in a,” wh ic h d oe s n otm eetLin ’s hea vy burd enof d em on st rat in g tha t co nd it io ns ha ve ch an ge d. 2 W e h ol d t ha t the BIA d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de nyin g Li n’s s eco nd m ot io n t o re op en . PETI TI ON DENI ED.

L in also argues that the BIA failed to addre ss some of h er evidenc e she submitt ed 2 when making its asyl u m d et erm i n ati on based on relig ious perse cution. But ag ain, the BIA is not require d to d i s cu ss all evidenc e prese nted, and we hold that the BIA “announc e[d] its decision in terms sufficie nt to enable a revie wing court to perc eive that it has heard and thought and not mere ly rea cted.” Tan , 446 F.3d at 1374. 6

Case: 11-15318 Date Filed: 09/26/2012 Page: 6 of 6