of newly discovered evidence, and that therefore movant faces a “heavy burden”). The BIA’s discretion to deny such a motion is “not unfettered,” however. Zhao, 265 F.3d at 86. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand for consideration of new evidence for abuse of discretion, and will find such abuse if “the Board’s decision provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Id. at 93 (internal citations omitted); see also Doherty, 502 U.S. at 323, 112 S.Ct. 719 (stating that review of denial of motion to reopen is for abuse of discretion); Blanco v. INS, 68 F.3d 642, 646-47 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). III. Cao’s Motion to Remand Cao fulfilled all
holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions holding that the bia does not err by denying a motion to reopen without an opposition from the government holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to file fourth amended complaint