Case Name: CHI-CHI CHANG, also known as Qi Qi Zhang, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-19
Citations: 426 F. App'x 253
Docket Number: No. 10-60564
Parties: CHI-CHI CHANG, also known as Qi Qi Zhang, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 426
Pages: 253–253

Head Matter:
CHI-CHI CHANG, also known as Qi Qi Zhang, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-60564
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 19, 2011.
Chi-Chi Chang, Qi Qi Zhang, Alhambra, CA, pro se.
Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esq., Trial Attorney, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Chinese citizen Chi-Chi Chang petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Chang filed his motion to reopen more than 90 days after the BIA's final order in the removal proceeding. He argues that his motion was timely because it was based on changed country conditions in China, i.e., his own recent conversion to Christianity and the disadvantageous position in which his religious activities placed him with the Chinese government.
We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 462, 469 (5th Cir.2005). Changed personal circumstances do not constitute changed country circumstances for purposes of 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2) and (c)(3)(H). In re C-W-L, 24 I. & N. Dec. 346, 350 (BIA 2007). The BIA's denial of Chang's motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion. See Manzano-Garcia, 413 F.3d at 469.
PETITION DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.