
    Yacoub QUOMSIEH; Muna Quomsieh; Hanin Quomsieh; Nadeen Quomsieh; Balquees Quomsieh; Jeries Quomsieh; Danial Quomsieh, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent.
    No. 07-2279.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 14, 2008.
    Filed: April 18, 2008.
    Timothy E. Wichmer, Bernhardt & Wichmer, St. Louis, MO, for Petitioners.
    David Edward Dauenheimer, Paul Fiori-no, Karen Yolanda Drummond, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Lori Scialabba, U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review, Office of General Counsel, Falls Church, VA, for Respondent.
    Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Yacoub Quomsieh and his family, Palestinian Christians from the West Bank, seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen their removal proceedings. They contend that changed circumstances — that the Hamas organization has taken over control of the Palestinian Authority — warrant the grant of an untimely motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review.

The Quomsiehs entered the United States in 2001, and, in January 2002, they filed their petitions for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their petitions, and the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. A panel of this court denied the Quomsiehs’ petitions for review in March 2007. See Quomsieh v. Gonzales, 479 F.8d 602 (8th Cir.2007).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Quomsiehs failed to establish changed circumstances which would justify reopening the removal proceedings. Alemu v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 907, 909 (8th Cir.2007) (standard of review). “[M]otions to reopen are disfavored because they undermine the government’s legitimate interest in finality....” Id. Thus, the Attorney General retains considerable discretion over such motions, and that discretion is abused only where the BIA “gives no rational explanation for its decision; departs from its established policies without explanation; relies on impermissible factors or legal error; or ignores or distorts the record evidence.” Id. (citations omitted).

The evidence the Quomsiehs submitted with their motion includes articles discussing the Hamas takeover of the Palestinian Authority. In reviewing this evidence and a State Department report on the status of religious relations in Israel and the Occupied Territories, the BIA concluded that while there were “tensions between Christians and Muslims ... the new Palestinian Authority (PA) government ha[d] taken steps to eliminate religious incitement.” This finding is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence presented by the Quom-siehs and from the State Department report, and the evidence does not show that the territory has undergone a material change in circumstances.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.  