Case: 16-13069 Date Filed: 02/10/2017 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-13069
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A077-655-775
HUI LIU,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(February 10, 2017)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-13069 Date Filed: 02/10/2017 Page: 2 of 4
Hiu Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order that
denied her second motion to reopen and to stay her removal from the United States
based on a change in country conditions. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). The Board
of Immigration Appeals found that Liu failed to present material evidence of
changed country conditions regarding the treatment of Christians attending
underground churches, see id., and that Liu failed to establish a prima facie case of
eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention
Against Torture, see id. § 1158(b)(1)(A), § 1231(b)(3)(A). We deny the petition.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion.
Butalova v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 768 F.3d 1179, 1182 (11th Cir. 2014). Our “review is
limited to determining whether the [Board of Immigration Appeals] exercised its
discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d
1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009). An alien generally may file only one motion to
reopen, 8 U.S.C. § 1229(c)(7)(A), within 90 days of the final order of removal, id.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), but “[t]here is no time limit on the filing of a motion . . . based
on changed country circumstances arising in the country of nationality . . . if such
evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or
presented at the previous hearing,” id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). A movant “bears a
heavy burden” to reopen removal proceedings, Zhang, 572 F.3d at 1319, “and must
present evidence of such a nature that the [Board] is satisfied that if proceedings
2
Case: 16-13069 Date Filed: 02/10/2017 Page: 3 of 4
. . . were reopened . . . the new evidence offered would likely change the result in
the case,” Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 813 (11th Cir. 2006) (brackets,
internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).
The Board did not abuse its discretion when it denied Liu’s second motion to
reopen for failure to establish a change in country conditions that would create an
exception to the numerosity and timeliness requirements. Liu already had filed one
motion, and she submitted her present motion more than twelve years after her
final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (c)(7)(C)(i). And Liu failed
to offer evidence sufficient to except her from the one motion and 90-day limits.
See id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
We cannot classify as arbitrary or capricious the finding of the Board that
Liu failed to submit material evidence that the treatment of Christians in China had
worsened. See Zhang, 572 F.3d at 1319. When Liu applied for asylum, she
submitted a copy of the 2000 Human Rights Report, which stated that the Chinese
government recognized Catholicism and Protestantism, but sought to restrict
religious practice to government-sanctioned organizations by requiring registration
of religious groups, closing and destroying unregistered places of worship, and
detaining, fining, harassing, and beating members of unregistered churches. Liu’s
newly-submitted evidence suggested that the mistreatment of Christians and
restrictions on their religious activities had been longstanding issues and varied
3
Case: 16-13069 Date Filed: 02/10/2017 Page: 4 of 4
among the regions in China. The 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 editions of the
Religious Freedom Report state that certain local governments in China continued
to regulate and demolish unregistered churches and harass their members, but the
“local authorities [in other regions] tacitly approved of or did not interfere with the
activities of some unregistered groups” so “long as they gather[ed] only in
private.”
We DENY Liu’s petition.
4