Ji Xue He v. Sessions, 693 F. App'x 52

Petitioner Ji Xue He, a Chinese national, had an IJ deny his asylum claim in 1997 based on violation of China’s family‑planning policies; deportation became final in 1998 but He remained in the U.S.
In 2015 He converted to Christianity in the United States and in 2016 moved to reopen his removal proceedings, citing allegedly worsened conditions for Christians in China.
He’s 2016 motion to reopen was filed more than 17 years after his order became final and therefore facially untimely under the statutory/regulatory 90‑day rule.
He argued the untimeliness was excused by the changed‑country‑conditions exception (evidence of material changes in China since 1998) and that his conversion placed him at risk of persecution if returned.
The BIA denied reopening, finding He’s conversion was a personal change (not country conditions) and that documentary evidence did not show a material change in country conditions applicable to He’s home province.
The Second Circuit denied review, concluding the BIA reasonably found no material change in country conditions and therefore properly denied the untimely motion to reopen.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the changed‑country‑conditions exception to the 90‑day motion‑to‑reopen rule applies	He argued conditions for Christians in China worsened since 1998, making his untimely motion timely under the exception	Government argued He failed to show a material, countrywide or locally applicable change in conditions since 1998; conversion is personal, not a country condition	Held: Exception does not apply—He’s conversion is a personal change and the country‑condition evidence did not show a material change relevant to his home province
Whether the BIA abused discretion by denying reopening as untimely	He claimed documentary evidence and State Dept. reports show increased persecution of Christians warrant reopening	Government contended reports showed longstanding unfavorable treatment of unregistered Christians and regional variation, so no demonstrated material change for He	Held: No abuse of discretion—the BIA reasonably compared current evidence to conditions at the 1997 hearing and found no material change

Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (standards for reviewing BIA factual findings and requirement to show local enforcement of policy to establish well‑founded fear)
Zheng v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (conversion after removal order is a personal change, not changed country conditions)
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976) (courts need not decide issues unnecessary to the outcome)