Ibrahim Momin v. Attorney General United States, 695 F. App'x 44

Momin, a Bangladeshi national, entered the U.S. without authorization in 2010, applied for asylum/withholding/CAT, and was found not credible by an IJ in 2011; the BIA affirmed and ordered removal.
In 2014 Momin moved to reopen based on his father’s 2013 murder by alleged Awami League members; the BIA denied reopening as repeating the same discredited claim and this court affirmed in 2015.
In May 2016 Momin filed a second motion to reopen (time- and number-barred) claiming changed country conditions in Bangladesh and that he would be targeted due to BNP activism and awareness of his U.S.-based political activity.
He submitted evidence including his U.S. BNP activity photos, a letter about his brother’s 2016 assault and threats, news articles, and 2014–2015 State Department human rights reports.
The BIA listed and addressed Momin’s submissions, gave greater weight to State Department reports, and concluded the evidence did not show materially changed country conditions sufficient to overcome the reopening time/number bars.
The Third Circuit applied highly deferential review and denied Momin’s petition, holding the BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence shows "changed country conditions" to excuse time/number bars on reopening	Momin: recent political violence, Awami League aware of his U.S. BNP activism, and his brother’s assault show material change	Gov: Evidence shows continuation, not material change; personal U.S. activism is a changed personal circumstance and irrelevant	Denied — BIA reasonably found no material change in country conditions
Whether BIA failed to consider submitted country-conditions evidence	Momin: BIA ignored or did not specifically mention key evidence	Gov: BIA listed and expressly considered Momin’s evidence and State Dept. reports	Denied — BIA adequately considered and explained its weighing of evidence
Whether anecdotal evidence (brother’s assault) outweighs State Department reports	Momin: brother’s assault and threats show increased risk	Gov: State Department reports are authoritative and comparable to prior reports; anecdote insufficient to show material change	Denied — BIA permissibly afforded greater weight to State Department reports
Whether denial of motion to reopen violated due process	Momin: BIA’s alleged failure to consider evidence and erroneous legal conclusions deprived him of due process	Gov: BIA acted within discretion and followed legal standards	Denied — no legal error; no due process violation found

Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. 2004) (standard of highly deferential review for motions to reopen)
Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477 (3d Cir. 2001) (substantial-evidence review of BIA factual findings)
Zheng v. Att’y Gen., 549 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2008) (BIA must explicitly consider country-conditions evidence that materially bears on claim)
Zhu v. Att’y Gen., 744 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 2014) (when rejecting country-conditions evidence, BIA must explain why)
Khan v. Att’y Gen., 691 F.3d 488 (3d Cir. 2012) (burden to show changed circumstances sufficient to change asylum outcome)
Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463 (3d Cir. 2003) (State Department reports are a primary resource for country conditions)
Pllumi v. Att’y Gen., 642 F.3d 155 (3d Cir. 2011) (continuation of violence does not necessarily establish material change)
Parvez v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 93 (1st Cir. 2007) (consistent reports of political violence may not establish changed conditions)