[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-12734

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A079-668-463

LI-JIAO CHEN, 

a.k.a. Chung Hung Chen, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

US ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent. 

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(February 6, 2013)

Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Li-Jiao Chen, whose true name is said to be Rong Huang, proceeding 

through counsel, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 

Case: 12-12734 Date Filed: 02/06/2013 Page: 1 of 4 
2

(“BIA”) decision denying her motion to reopen the proceedings on her application 

for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 

Torture (“CAT”). In her initial application, filed in 2002, Chen sought asylum 

because Chinese family planning officers were allegedly after her for marrying in 

secret and before she was of legal age to do so. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 

denied Chen’s application because he found that she did not sufficiently or 

persuasively show past persecution, and, in 2004, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s 

decision. In her motion to reopen, filed in 2012, Chen claims to have converted to 

Christianity and argues that conditions for Christians have worsened in China since 

her initial asylum application. The BIA concluded that her motion was untimely, 

and that she had not shown a change in country conditions, but merely a change in 

personal circumstances. On appeal, Chen argues that the BIA erred in concluding 

that she had not shown changed country conditions. After thorough review, we 

deny the petition.

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Zhang 

v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009). Our review is limited to 

determining whether the BIA exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious 

manner. Id. The movant bears a heavy burden because motions to reopen are 

especially disfavored in removal proceedings. Id. 

Case: 12-12734 Date Filed: 02/06/2013 Page: 2 of 4 
3

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), a “motion to reopen 

shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of 

removal,” subject to certain exceptions. 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). The 90-day 

period for filing a motion to reopen has been characterized as mandatory and 

jurisdictional. Abdi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 430 F.3d 1148, 1150 (11th Cir. 2005). 

However, the 90-day time limit does not apply if the motion to reopen 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.” 

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Nonetheless, an alien cannot avoid the requirement of 

changed country conditions by showing only a change in personal circumstances. 

Zhang, 572 F.3d at 1319.

Here, Chen has not shown that the BIA acted arbitrarily or capriciously in 

determining that she had not shown changed country conditions. Chen’s motion 

came eight years after the BIA’s final decision. The BIA determined -- after 

considering the proffered 2009 and 2010 Country Reports on China, a 

congressional commission report on China, China Aid Association reports, and 

various media reports -- that Chen had not shown a change in country conditions 

since the time of her original hearing. The 2001 Country Report notes that China’s 

respect for religious freedom remained poor and that crackdowns on unregistered 

Case: 12-12734 Date Filed: 02/06/2013 Page: 3 of 4 
4

groups, including underground Protestant groups, continued. The 2001 Report also 

states, however, that official repression against underground protestant groups in 

Chen’s home province of Fujian “eased somewhat.” In her initial brief, Chen 

quotes a 2003 Country Report that authorities “particularly targeted” unofficial 

Catholic churches in Fujian province. But this focus is misplaced because the 

2003 report is nine years out of date and this limited reference does not show 

changed country conditions relative to the time of Chen’s hearing. Additionally,

the more recent 2009 and 2010 Reports emphasize harassment of house church 

leaders and members in other areas, but they do not mention Fujian province.

Beyond that, Chen focuses on general reports of intolerance, harassment, 

and persecution of unauthorized religious groups in China -- from the State 

Department and the media -- but Chen does not show how these reports indicate a 

worsening of conditions in Fujian province and has not shown any such change in 

China generally. Because the State Department and media reports did not clearly 

indicate that conditions for members of house churches in Fujian province or 

China as a whole are currently worse than they were in 2001, the BIA did not act 

arbitrarily or capriciously in determining that Chen had not shown changed country 

conditions. Accordingly, we deny the petition.

PETITION DENIED.

Case: 12-12734 Date Filed: 02/06/2013 Page: 4 of 4