that Zhang’s motion to reopen was both based on the country conditions evidence in the record, including the State Department’s 2008 Religious Freedom Report for China. See U.S. Department of State 2008 Religious Freedom Report for China; see also 2007 Annual Report of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. Although it did not discuss that evidence in detail, it was not required to do so. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338 n. 17 (2d Cir.2006) (presuming that the agency has taken into account all evidence presented, unless the record “compellingly suggests otherwise”). This is particularly so because the evidence Zhang submitted was the same the agency is asked to consider “time and again.” See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its
holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen 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 abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider when the motion merely repeats arguments that the bia has previously rejected