Case Name: KWOK HUNG TANG, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-09
Citations: 83 F. App'x 589
Docket Number: No. 03-60105
Parties: KWOK HUNG TANG, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 83
Pages: 589–590

Head Matter:
KWOK HUNG TANG, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-60105
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 9, 2003.
Albert J. Armendariz, Jr., Edward W. Dunbar, Dunbar, Armendariz, Crowley & Hegeman, El Paso, TX, for Petitioner.
Luis Garcia, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Director’s Office, El Paso, TX, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, John Ashcroft, Robert Mark Loeb, Sushma Soni, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
KWOK Hung Tang petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen. He contends that the evidence at tached to the motion demonstrates: circumstances in Hong Kong have changed since his removal order was issued; and he will be persecuted by the government if he returns to Hong Kong.
Tang has failed to produce material evidence that would establish his prima facie case for asylum or withholding of removal based upon changed conditions in Hong Kong. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). Therefore, he has not established that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 904 (5th Cir.2002); Bahramnia v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 782 F.2d 1243, 1244 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 930, 107 S.Ct. 398, 93 L.Ed.2d 352 (1986).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.