Lin v. Barr, 17-4072

Petitioner Guang Hui Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, sought review of the BIA’s December 11, 2017 denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings.
Lin filed the 2017 motion more than a decade after the BIA’s final administrative decision, so it was untimely under the 90-day rule for motions to reopen.
Lin sought to toll the time limit by showing changed country conditions for Christians in his home province (Fujian), submitting country‑condition reports and other evidence.
The BIA compared evidence submitted with the motion to conditions at the time of Lin’s 2002 merits hearing and concluded Lin failed to show a material worsening in Fujian.
Lin argued the BIA misread country reports, ignored parts of the record, and improperly relied on earlier State Department reports; the BIA found it had adequately considered the evidence and that the older reports were part of the administrative record.
The Second Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion (motion to reopen) and substantial evidence (country conditions) and denied the petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lin’s untimely motion to reopen may be excused by changed country conditions	Lin: conditions for Christians in Fujian worsened since 2002, so exception applies	Gov: record does not show a material change in relevant Fujian conditions since 2002	Held: No; substantial evidence supports BIA that Lin failed to show material worsening, so timeliness not excused
Whether the country‑conditions evidence Lin submitted shows a material change compared to conditions at the 2002 merits hearing	Lin: newer reports and evidence demonstrate escalation of repression	Gov: evidence shows continued periodic crackdowns but not a material escalation in Fujian	Held: BIA’s comparison of 2001–2002 and later evidence is supported by substantial evidence
Whether the BIA ignored or failed to address portions of the record	Lin: BIA overlooked or mischaracterized key reports and evidence	Gov: BIA gave reasoned consideration and is not required to parse every item	Held: BIA adequately considered the record; no abuse of discretion shown
Whether the BIA improperly relied on State Department reports not in the administrative record	Lin: 1998 and 2001 reports were not part of the record and should not be relied on	Gov: those reports had been filed earlier and were incorporated into the administrative record	Held: Reports were part of the record; BIA permissibly relied on them

Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for reopening and need to show change in relevant geographic area)
Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (weight of evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within agency discretion)
INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (burden on movant to introduce evidence in support of reopening)
Zhi Yun Gao v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2007) (agency need not expressly refute every argument or piece of evidence)
Shu Han Liu v. Holder, 718 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2013) (example of different evidentiary outcome on similar regional issues)
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976) (courts need not decide issues unnecessary to the result)