Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the April 29, 2008 order of the BIA denying her timely motion to reopen. In re Min Lin, No. A98 586 787 (B.I.A. Apr. 29, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, see Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006), and its subsidiary factual findings for substantial evidence, see Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169, 172-73 (2d Cir.2008). Lin contends that the BIA failed properly to evaluate or consider her newly proffered evidence of feared future persecution based on her practice of Roman Catholicism. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (<HOLDING>). We disagree. Notwithstanding Lin’s
recognizing that bia may deny motion to reopen where movant has not established prima facie eligibility for relief sought recognizing that failure to offer new previously unavailable evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought is a proper ground on which the bia may deny a motion to reopen recognizing that there are at least three independent grounds on which the bia may deny a motion to reopen 1 failure to establish a prima facie case 2 failure to introduce evidence that was material and previously unavailable and 3 a determination that despite the aliens statutory eligibility for relief he or she is not entitled to a favorable exercise of discretion recognizing that in an untimely motion to reopen based on changed country conditions the movant must submit previously unavailable evidence demonstrating his prima facie eligibility for relief holding that a movants failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief is a proper ground for the bia to deny a motion to reopen