Zhong Li v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 14, 2018*
Decided February 14, 2018
Before
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 17‐1909
ZHONG LI,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
No. A087‐998‐980
O R D E R
Zhong Li, a Chinese citizen, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Because the Board did
not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, we deny the petition for review.
* We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs
and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would
not significantly aid the court. See FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 17‐1909 Page 2
Li entered the United States without authorization in 2010; almost immediately
immigration officials apprehended him and placed him in removal proceedings.
He conceded his inadmissibility but applied for asylum, withholding of removal under
the Immigration and Nationality Act, and withholding of removal under the
Convention Against Torture, all based on his alleged fear of religious persecution in
China. Li alleged that he fled China after government officials detained him because of
his membership in an underground Christian church. In 2013, an immigration judge
found Li not credible—based on inconsistencies in his testimony and a lack of
corroborating evidence—and denied him all relief. The Board upheld the IJ’s decision,
and we denied Li’s petition for review, Li v. Lynch, 626 F. App’x 649 (7th Cir. 2015).
More than a year later, Li moved the Board to reopen his removal proceedings,
raising a new contention. He alleged a fear of persecution based on his newfound
practice of Falun Gong, a spiritual movement that the Chinese government considers a
cult. Li explained that he started to practice Falun Gong in April 2015, while in the
United States and during his appeal to the Board. He had been suffering from stress, he
said, and this practice allegedly cured his neurosis, so he sent two Falun Gong DVDs to
his father in China. When the Falun Gong practice also cured his father’s sciatica, Li
encouraged his father to distribute copies of the DVDs to friends and family. These
activities brought Li’s father to the attention of Chinese authorities, who detained him
for twenty days. The police told Li’s father that Li must stop sending “cult material” to
China and that Li must report to them when he returns. Li attached to his motion an
unsworn statement, purportedly written by his father, that vaguely described his
father’s detention. He also attached a handwritten document that his father allegedly
received upon his release from detention; the document reflected that Li’s father was
detained for “distributing cult materials” and was “released after being educated.”
Li also submitted various country reports stating that human rights conditions in China
have deteriorated since Xi Jinping became president in 2013.
The Board denied Li’s motion to reopen. It reasoned that the request came long
after the expiration of the 90‐day filing deadline and that Li had not established
changed country conditions to excuse his untimeliness. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)–(3).
We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, upholding
the Board’s decision unless it was made without a rational explanation or rested on an
impermissible basis. See Aparicio‐Brito v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 674, 688 (7th Cir. 2016).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 17‐1909 Page 3
We find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision. Li’s motion to reopen
rests mostly on his newfound interest in Falun Gong, but a mere change in personal
circumstances cannot by itself excuse the motion’s untimeliness. See Zheng v. Holder,
701 F.3d 237, 240–41 (7th Cir. 2012); Chen v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 758, 760 (7th Cir. 2007).
What’s more, putting to the side the personal nature of Li’s new circumstances,
we deny the petition for another reason: the Board had a sound basis for rejecting Li’s
contention that conditions for Falun Gong practitioners in China have deteriorated
materially since his hearing before the IJ in 2013. The Chinese government first banned
the Falun Gong movement almost two decades ago. See, e.g., Liu v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d
307, 309 (7th Cir. 2004) (involving asylum claim brought by Falun Gong practitioner).
Neither Li’s father’s vague account of being detained on one occasion nor the country
reports Li submitted show with the required specificity that the Chinese government
has stepped up its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in recent years. See Zheng v.
Holder, 710 F.3d 769, 772 (7th Cir. 2013) (concluding that evidence showing
“deterioration” of religious protections in China lacks specificity required to show
material change in country conditions); Moosa v. Holder, 644 F.3d 380, 387 (7th Cir. 2011).
Indeed, one of those reports estimates that persecution of religious minorities—
including practitioners of Falun Gong—decreased between 2012 and 2014.
Accordingly, we DENY the petition for review.

-- 3 of 3 --