his motion — and that, Hu claimed, his prior counsel failed to submit — established his eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief. The BIA found that the evidence Hu presented with his motion did not show a likelihood of persecution or torture. The BIA did not specifically indicate whether this finding established that counsel's failure to present such evidence in the first instance was not prejudicial, see Changxu Jiang v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 266, 270 (2d Cir.2008) (providing that a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel must show, inter alia, that the movant was prejudiced by his counsel’s performance), or that Hu was simply not eligible for relief, even in light of the new evidence, see INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (<HOLDING>). However, under either analysis, the BIA's
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 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 the bia may deny a motion to reopen based on its finding that the movant has not established his prima facie eligibility for relief 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