Opinion ID: 6323337
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Reopen for Asylum

Text: Wang also moved to reopen to apply for asylum based on his 2012 conversion to Catholicism and the Chinese authorities’ alleged December 2013 discovery of religious materials that he sent to his sister in China. This motion was untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after the removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). The 90-day time limit does not apply if reopening is sought to apply for asylum and the motion is 6 “based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i). The agency did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen on this basis. Wang’s conversion to Catholicism is a change in personal circumstances that does not excuse the time limitation on his motion to reopen. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 273–74 (2d Cir. 2006) (making clear that the limitations on motions to reopen may not be suspended because of a “selfinduced change in personal circumstances” that is “entirely of [the applicant’s] own making after being ordered to leave the United States”). In addition, Wang did not otherwise show a change in conditions in China. Even assuming that the Chinese authorities’ alleged discovery of religious materials could constitute a change in conditions in China, the IJ rejected that claim as not credible and uncorroborated and Wang did not challenge those findings on appeal to the BIA. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir. 7 2006) (holding that petitioner generally is required to raise all issues before the BIA). Were we to reach the issue, we would find no error in the IJ’s decision not to credit Wang’s sister’s affidavit and an unauthenticated village committee notice. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (holding that we generally defer to agency’s weighing of evidence and upholding BIA’s refusal to credit letter from applicant’s spouse that Chinese authorities had discovered his political activities in the United States). To the extent that Wang argued that conditions have worsened for Catholics in China, he discussed events in 2013 and did not make the necessary comparison to conditions before his 2000 removal order. See In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007) (“In determining whether evidence accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material change in country conditions that would justify reopening, [the agency] compare[s] the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below.”). Moreover, the country conditions evidence—a 2012 U.S. State Department report— supports the agency’s conclusion that there was continued religious repression, not a material worsening of conditions. 8