Opinion ID: 3047836
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Changed Personal Circumstances

Text: The BIA did not address Zhou’s contention that she is permitted pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) to bring a successive asylum application based on changed personal circumstances in connection with her motion to reopen. Because we hold that the BIA abused its discretion in denying Zhou’s untimely motion to reopen the removal proceedings, as discussed supra, the BIA may find it appropriate to consider Zhou’s successive asylum application based on her changed personal circumstances if it concludes that her motion to reopen based on changed country circumstances should be 3 “[J]udicial review of an agency’s decision is limited to the rationale that the agency provides.” Konan v. Att’y Gen., 432 F.3d 497, 501 (3d Cir. 2005). In rejecting Zhou’s motion to reopen, the BIA focused on Zhou’s failure to establish changed country conditions and did not consider whether Zhou established a prima facie claim for relief under the CAT. Accordingly, this Court cannot consider in the first instance whether Zhou established a prima facie claim for relief under CAT. See Konan, 432 F.3d at 501 (“A reviewing court is powerless to decide in the first instance issues that an agency does not reach.”). 10 granted.4 For the foregoing reasons, we will grant the petition for review and remand the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 4 We note that the BIA recently ruled that an alien unable to prevail on a motion to reopen is barred from filing a successive asylum application under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). In re C-W-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 346, 350 (BIA 2007). 11