Jinggui Jiang v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JINGGUI JIANG,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73657
Agency No. A097-150-343
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 8, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and DORSEY,*** District
Judge.
Petitioner Jinggui Jiang seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
("BIA") denial of his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his motion to
FILED
APR 12 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Jennifer A. Dorsey, United States District Judge for the
District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

reopen. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Toor v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 1055, 1059
(9th Cir. 2015), we deny the petition.
Although the BIA held that the motion to reopen failed because Petitioner
alleged a change in personal conditions and because Petitioner failed to attach
copies of country reports, the BIA also took administrative notice of the 2004
Country Report and held, in the alternative, that Petitioner had not shown a
material change in country conditions for Christians in China. Substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s alternative determination. See Mutuku v. Holder, 600
F.3d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir. 2010) ("We review factual findings regarding changed
country conditions for substantial evidence."). The BIA found that the recent
reports of persecution of Christians were not materially worse than the description
of persecution of Christians in the 2004 Country Report. We have carefully
reviewed the record on appeal, and we conclude that the record does not compel
the contrary conclusion.
In Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2014), we held that a change
in personal circumstances might well inform a claim of changed country
conditions. However, Chandra does not help Petitioner because substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s finding that country conditions in China have not
materially changed during the relevant time period.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

To the extent that the BIA declined to take administrative notice of the
2005–2008 Country Reports, the BIA did not abuse its discretion because those
reports contained information similar to later reports, which the BIA did consider.
See Castillo-Villagra v. INS, 972 F.2d 1017, 1028 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that we
review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s decision not to take administrative notice).
Petition DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --