944 F.3d 57
1st Cir.2019Background
- Lin, a Chinese national, entered the U.S. on a K-1 visa in 2001, overstayed, and later married and raised a family in Massachusetts.
- An IJ granted Lin asylum in 2011 based on fear of future enforcement of China’s family‑planning policies; the BIA reversed and ordered removal in 2012, and this Court denied review in 2013.
- Lin converted to Christianity and was baptized in 2017; she attends and participates in Chinese Christian church activities and fears persecution as an underground church member if returned to China.
- In 2018 Lin filed a motion to reopen the removal proceedings, arguing changed country conditions relating to religious persecution warranted reopening despite the statutory time bar.
- The BIA denied the motion as time‑barred, concluding the record showed longstanding repression of underground churches predating 2011 and no material deterioration since the merits hearing; it also found Lin failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding, or CAT relief.
- The First Circuit denied Lin’s petition for review, holding the BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA abused discretion in denying 2018 motion to reopen as time‑barred under changed‑country‑conditions exception | Lin: Evidence shows material deterioration in China for underground Christians since 2011 (including National Security Law effects); thus exception applies | DHS/BIA: Reports show repression of underground churches predates 2011 and conditions did not materially intensify | Held: No abuse of discretion; evidence shows longstanding repression, not a material change, so motion is time‑barred |
| Whether BIA cursorily reviewed or ignored critical evidence (e.g., 2009 State Dept. report) | Lin: BIA performed only a cursory, aggregate review and ignored the 2009 report she cited as vital | BIA: Considered and cited multiple exhibits and took administrative notice of the 2009 report Lin had not submitted | Held: BIA adequately considered the evidence; no cursory review |
| Whether persistence of grave conditions suffices as 'changed conditions' | Lin: Severity and recent legal changes (e.g., National Security Law) show deterioration | DHS/BIA: Persistence, even if grave, does not show intensification required by precedent | Held: Persistence of longstanding persecution is insufficient; intensification required |
| Whether personal conversion constitutes changed country conditions | Lin: (did not press conversion as change in country conditions) | DHS/BIA: Conversion is a personal change and typically self‑induced, not a country‑level change | Held: Personal conversion alone does not meet the exception; court cites precedent rejecting reliance on personal changes |
Key Cases Cited
- Guerrero-Santana v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 90 (motions to reopen are disfavored and finality/expeditious processing are compelling public interests)
- Raza v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 125 (standard for reviewing BIA denials of motions to reopen; agency must articulate reasoned conclusion)
- García-Aguilar v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 215 (requirements for exception to time bar based on changed country conditions)
- Xin Qiang Liu v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 69 (changed conditions requires intensification or deterioration, not mere continuation)
- Haizem Liu v. Holder, 727 F.3d 53 (compare country‑condition evidence to conditions at prior merits hearing)
- Fen Tjong Lie v. Holder, 729 F.3d 28 (persistence of negative conditions does not establish changed country conditions)
- Sánchez-Romero v. Sessions, 865 F.3d 43 (grave but unchanging conditions do not equal intensification)
- Rei Feng Wang v. Lynch, 795 F.3d 283 (personal conversions or self‑induced changes do not qualify as changed country conditions)