Bd. erred in denying alien’s motion to reopen instant removal proceedings alleging that alien would personally face forced sterilization under China’s one-child policy if required to return to Fujian Province with his two U.S.-born children. While Bd. denied motion to reopen after finding that alien had failed to establish change in conditions within Fujian Province with respect to enforcement of one-child policy after 2007, Bd. failed to meaningfully address certain documents indicating existence of more strict enforcement of said policy in alien’s home town in 2009 and 2010. Moreover, Bd. misapprehended purpose of alien’s evidence that demonstrated steady worsening of conditions that warranted reopening of case.