that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (internal quotation omitted)). While it is well established that the BIA has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to reopen, if it does not articulate a reasoned basis for rejecting the motion or fails to consider all the aspects of the petitioner’s claim, it has abused its discretion. Habchy, 471 F.3d at 861-62. The BIA should have addressed whether, in light of Habchy’s particular situation, the new evidence established a materially greater risk of persecution based on his political opinion. The BIA thus abused its discretion in failing even to acknowledge the substantive issue of an increased risk of persecution based on political opinion, whether real or imputed. See Mejia v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Zheng v. BIA, 154 F. App’x 265, 266-67 (2d
holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by giving summary consideration to evidence presented in a motion to reopen particularly when dealing with evidence which the bia is asked to repeatedly consider holding that the bia does not err by denying a motion to reopen without an opposition from the government holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions holding that it was within the discretion of the bia to deny a motion to reopen because it was not accompanied by an asylum application holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it