Rei Feng Wang v. Lynch, 795 F.3d 283

Wang, a Chinese national, petitions for review of a BIA order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings as untimely.
Wang previously sought asylum and withholding of removal; final IJ decision in 1998 was adverse and BIA dismissed appeal in 1999, and Wang remained in the U.S.
In 2014, Wang moved to reopen arguing changed country conditions in China and his personal conversion to Christianity since 2012.
The BIA denied reopening, concluding no material change in China and that his conversion was a personal change, not a country-condition change.
The BIA treated the document from Wang’s father and a village notice as unauthenticated and not establishing material change.
Wang challenges the timeliness and the mixed-petition theory, but the First Circuit affirms the BIA and denies relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether motion to reopen was timely under changed-country-conditions exception	Wang contends changed China conditions were not available earlier and justify reopening.	BIA held no material change in country conditions and the exception does not apply.	No abuse of discretion; time-bar for reopening applies.
Whether Wang's petition is a mixed petition requiring a different standard	Wang asserts both personal and country-condition changes justify reopening.	BIA correctly treated as inadequately demonstrating country-condition change when combined with personal change.	Court declines to decide circuit split; mixed petition rejected or not dispositive.
Whether conversion to Christianity constitutes a change in personal circumstances sufficient for reopening	Wang argues his 2012 Christian conversion should be treated as a change in conditions warranting reopening.	Conversion is a self-induced personal change, not a country-condition change.	Wang's conversion is a change in personal circumstances and does not satisfy the change-in-country-conditions exception.
Whether the 2012 State Department report demonstrates a material change in country conditions	The report shows intensified persecution of Christians in China and supports reopening.	The report does not show a material worsening since the merits hearing; it is general background.	BIA did not abuse discretion in rejecting the report as establishing a material change.

Aponte v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for motions to reopen)
Hang Chen v. Holder, 675 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2012) (finality and expeditious processing considerations)
Guerrero-Santana v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2007) (finality interests in removal proceedings)
Ming Chen v. Holder, 722 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2013) (change in personal circumstances generally does not suffice)
Yang Zhao-Cheng v. Holder, 721 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2013) (mixed petitions and change-in-country-conditions analysis context)
Khan v. Att'y Gen. of U.S., 691 F.3d 488 (3d Cir. 2012) (mixed petitions and exceptions to time-bar analysis)
Haizem Liu v. Holder, 727 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2013) (evidentiary weighing of documents in motion to reopen)