Xiu Xia Zheng v. Holder, 502 F. App'x 13

Zheng, a Chinese Catholic; entered the United States in 2000 on someone else’s passport and was detained as an arriving alien without valid entry documents.
She admitted removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture; IJ denied all relief in 2002, and the BIA dismissed the appeal in 2004.
Zheng remained in the United States and filed a timely motion for reconsideration with the BIA, which was denied.
In 2011 Zheng filed a motion with the BIA to reopen based on changed country conditions in China, attempting to rely on new evidence of potential persecution.
The BIA denied the motion to reopen as untimely and not showing material change in country conditions; it also discounted unauthenticated documentary evidence and found the evidence speculative.
Zheng petitions for review, challenging the BIA’s discretionary denial of the motion to reopen.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA abused its discretion re unauthenticated evidence	Zheng argues un authenticated Village Committee notice should be given weight.	BIA may weight unauthenticated Chinese government documents less or exclude them.	No abuse; BIA could weigh unauthenticated documents less.
Whether evidence shows material changed country conditions	Changed conditions in China threaten Zheng for religious activity.	Evidence is speculative and does not show a material change likely to alter the outcome.	No material change shown; evidence not likely to change the result.
Whether Zheng demonstrated persecution upon return sufficient to alter outcome	Village notice language could indicate arrest/imprisonment constituting persecution.	Record lacks specifics on duration or severity; does not establish persecution.	Not shown; evidence too speculative to meet persecution threshold.
Whether BIA adequately addressed availability of evidence and country conditions	BIA failed to consider whether evidence was previously unavailable and whether conditions worsened.	BIA provided reasoned consideration with adequate findings.	BIA’s consideration adequate; no failure to address issues required.

INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (changed-country-conditions exception requires material evidence and prima facie eligibility)
In re Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464 (BIA 1992) (material evidence must likely change the outcome)
Raza v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2007) (material evidence must ground eligibility for relief)
Le Bin Zhu v. Holder, 622 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2010) (BIA may give less weight to unauthenticated Chinese government documents)
Jiang v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2007) (authentication of Chinese documents not exclusive; BIA may rely on alternatives)
Yongo v. INS, 355 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2004) (authentication proof may be accomplished in multiple reasonable ways)
Morales v. INS, 208 F.3d 323 (1st Cir. 2000) (courts require reasoned decisionmaking in asylum proceedings)