[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-15396

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A097-341-676

SHI-HANG CHEN, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(July 24, 2015)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Shi-Hang Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, 

seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to 

reopen his removal proceedings. Chen contends that the country conditions in his 

Case: 14-15396 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

home province of Fujian have materially changed, and if he is forced to return 

there, he will be punished for violating the family planning laws because he has 

two children. 

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an 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. “The moving party bears a heavy burden as motions to reopen are 

disfavored, especially in removal proceedings.” Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 

F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

An alien seeking to reopen removal proceedings based on changed country 

conditions must present “evidence [that] is material and [that] was not available 

and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Chen did not meet his heavy burden of presenting 

the required evidence. In its order denying Chen’s motion to reopen, the BIA 

recognized that the two Country Reports that Chen had submitted, the 2004 report 

in support of his application for asylum in his initial removal proceedings and the 

2013 report in support of his motion to reopen, both discuss essentially the same 

types of enforcement of China’s family planning policies, including coercion, 

forced sterilization and abortion, and social compensation fees. While in his initial 

removal proceedings he proffered specific evidence about family planning 

Case: 14-15396 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

measures taken against the woman who was his wife at that time, in his present 

proceedings, he proffered no new evidence showing that the country conditions 

have worsened in a way that is likely to cause him to be singled out for forced 

sterilization or other persecution upon returning to China with two foreign-born 

children. Although Chen did present evidence showing that his personal 

circumstances have changed, that is insufficient to support a motion to reopen. See

Jiang, 568 F.3d at 1258 (stating that “changed personal circumstances do not meet 

the standard for a petition to reopen”); see also Zhang, 572 F.3d at 1319 (“An alien 

cannot circumvent the requirement of changed country conditions by 

demonstrating only a change in her personal circumstances.”). 

The BIA did not act in an arbitrary or capricious fashion or abuse its 

discretion by denying Chen’s motion to reopen. 

PETITION DENIED.

Case: 14-15396 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 3 of 3