former political affiliation and his perceived allegiance to Israel- — -not only because of the general increase in violence. Because of his particular allegations, this claim is different from that in Al Yatim. There, we found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a motion to reopen where the petitioners, who sought relief based on their identity as Christians living in the Palestinian territory, failed to establish a material change in country conditions. Al Ya-tim, 531 F.3d at 591. Our conclusion rested, in part, on the fact that the petitioners did “not explain[] how the [election of Hamas] would impact them specifically, as opposed to creating a generalized increase in regional hostilities.” Id,.; see also Harchenko v. INS, 379 F.3d 405, 410 (6th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Given Habchy’s particular background, an
holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen holding the bia did not abuse its discretion in finding petitioner did not satisfy the procedural requirements for his motion in part because petitioner failed to submit a completed application for relief holding the bia did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when the petitioner presented a long list of newspaper articles and references to the  state department country reports but failed to explain how these developments would affect the petitioner and demonstrate the individualized fear of persecution required for asylum holding that the bia did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen supported by allegedly unavailable evidence regarding changed country conditions where there had been a previous adverse credibility finding in the underlying asylum hearing