Case: 12-11894 Date Filed: 12/20/2012 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11894
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A076-526-254
LI LI,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(December 20, 2012)
Before HULL, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Li Li seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) order
denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings based on changed country
conditions. After careful review, we deny the petition.
Case: 12-11894 Date Filed: 12/20/2012 Page: 2 of 5
I.
Li, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, was served with a
Notice to Appear in 2000 charging her with removability under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), as an alien not in possession of a valid immigrant visa or
entry document. In 2001, an Immigration Judge ordered Li removed in absentia
because she failed to appear at her removal hearing. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(A).
In 2011, Li was baptized in a Christian church in the United States. She then
filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings — in order to file applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture — based on China’s persecution of non-government
sanctioned (unregistered) Christian church members. 1 If returned to China, she
argued, she would join an unregistered Christian church and suffer persecution,
which had materially increased since her 2001 removal hearing. The BIA denied
the motion to reopen because the evidence — including the State Department’s
2009 Human Rights Report and the 2009 Congressional-Executive Commission on
China’s Report — did not show that China’s treatment of unregistered Christian
church members had materially changed since 2001, so Li did not show changed
country conditions. This is Li’s petition for review.
1
Li filed other motions to reopen between 2001 and 2011, but only this one is at issue.
2
Case: 12-11894 Date Filed: 12/20/2012 Page: 3 of 5
II.
We review the BIA’s decision not to reopen immigration proceedings for an
abuse of discretion. Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 808 (11th Cir. 2006). We
will only find that the BIA has abused its discretion if its decision was arbitrary or
capricious. Id. Generally, an alien may file only one motion to reopen, which
must be filed within 90 days of the final removal order. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1).
To overcome these limitations, Li was required to show a material change of
conditions in China since her removal hearing. See id. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i); Jiang v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009).
The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence: we must
affirm them if supported by “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the
record considered as a whole.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283-84
(11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). To reverse a BIA factual
finding, we must find that “the record compels a reversal; the mere fact that the
record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of the
administrative findings.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir.
2004) (en banc).
The BIA “must consider all evidence introduced by the applicant.” Tan v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006) (alteration and internal
quotation marks omitted). But where the BIA “has given reasoned consideration to
3
Case: 12-11894 Date Filed: 12/20/2012 Page: 4 of 5
the petition, and made adequate findings, we will not require that it address
specifically . . . each piece of evidence the petitioner presented.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). Rather, the BIA must “consider the issues raised and
announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive
that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
III.
Contrary to Li’s assertions, the record supports the BIA’s finding that there
was no material change in country conditions. The 1999 and 2000 State
Department Country Reports indicate that China mistreated unregistered Christian
churches and its members before 2001. The reports describe the Chinese
government’s attempts to regulate Christian churches and repress unregistered
ones, including by, in some cases, destroying or confiscating churches and
detaining and beating church members. The evidence Li presented does not
indicate a material worsening of those conditions. Further, although Li emphasizes
that the Chinese government’s intensified repression of unregistered churches
before the 2008 Olympics in Beijing is evidence of materially changed conditions,
the BIA found this to be merely a continuation of similar conditions that existed in
2001. The record does not compel the opposite conclusion. The evidence Li cites
indicates that the Chinese government interfered more with unregistered churches
4
Case: 12-11894 Date Filed: 12/20/2012 Page: 5 of 5
in periods preceding sensitive anniversaries and does not indicate that was a
change from the past.
Li also argues that the BIA failed to consider the evidence she presented.
We disagree. The BIA specifically referred to Li’s evidence and found that it did
not demonstrate a material change in conditions since 2001. Because the BIA
adequately explained its decision, it was not required to address each portion of the
evidence Li cited. See id. Li asserts that the BIA construed her motion to reopen
as one based solely on changed personal circumstances rather than changed
country conditions, and thus discounted her evidence of the latter. But the BIA
stated the correct legal standard and, as demonstrated by the extent to which it was
discussed, based its decision on the lack of materially changed conditions in China.
The BIA considered the issues Li raised and announced its decision in sufficient
terms. See id.
The BIA properly considered Li’s evidence, and substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s finding that Li had failed to show materially changed
conditions in China. Consequently, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Li’s motion to reopen. 2
PETITION DENIED.
2
Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion based on Li’s failure to
show materially changed country conditions, we need not decide whether Li established a prima
facie case for relief. See Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 1302.
5