KWOK Hung Tang petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen. He contends that the evidence at *590 tached to the motion demonstrates: circumstances in Hong Kong have changed since his removal order was issued; and he will be persecuted by the government if he returns to Hong Kong.

Tang has failed to produce material evidence that would establish his prima facie case for asylum or withholding of removal based upon changed conditions in Hong Kong. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). Therefore, he has not established that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 904 (5th Cir. 2002); Bahramnia v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 782 F.2d 1243, 1244 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 930, 107 S.Ct. 398, 93 L.Ed.2d 352 (1986).

DENIED