Case: 14-15396 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15396
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A097-341-676
SHI-HANG CHEN,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(July 24, 2015)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Shi-Hang Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China,
seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to
reopen his removal proceedings. Chen contends that the country conditions in his
Case: 14-15396 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 2 of 3
home province of Fujian have materially changed, and if he is forced to return
there, he will be punished for violating the family planning laws because he has
two children.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. Jiang
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). Our review is limited to
determining whether the BIA exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious
manner. Id. “The moving party bears a heavy burden as motions to reopen are
disfavored, especially in removal proceedings.” Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572
F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
An alien seeking to reopen removal proceedings based on changed country
conditions must present “evidence [that] is material and [that] was not available
and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.”
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Chen did not meet his heavy burden of presenting
the required evidence. In its order denying Chen’s motion to reopen, the BIA
recognized that the two Country Reports that Chen had submitted, the 2004 report
in support of his application for asylum in his initial removal proceedings and the
2013 report in support of his motion to reopen, both discuss essentially the same
types of enforcement of China’s family planning policies, including coercion,
forced sterilization and abortion, and social compensation fees. While in his initial
removal proceedings he proffered specific evidence about family planning
2
Case: 14-15396 Date Filed: 07/24/2015 Page: 3 of 3
measures taken against the woman who was his wife at that time, in his present
proceedings, he proffered no new evidence showing that the country conditions
have worsened in a way that is likely to cause him to be singled out for forced
sterilization or other persecution upon returning to China with two foreign-born
children. Although Chen did present evidence showing that his personal
circumstances have changed, that is insufficient to support a motion to reopen. See
Jiang, 568 F.3d at 1258 (stating that “changed personal circumstances do not meet
the standard for a petition to reopen”); see also Zhang, 572 F.3d at 1319 (“An alien
cannot circumvent the requirement of changed country conditions by
demonstrating only a change in her personal circumstances.”).
The BIA did not act in an arbitrary or capricious fashion or abuse its
discretion by denying Chen’s motion to reopen.
PETITION DENIED.
3