#### Ervin KACELI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-4557-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 7, 2010.

Michael J. Lacey, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI, for Petitioner.

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Paul T. Cygnarowicz, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

*83PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Ervin Kaceli, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of an October 19, 2009, order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. *In re Kaceli,*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 19, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *See Ali v. Gonzales,*448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006). An alien who has been ordered removed may file one motion to reopen but must do so within 90 days of the final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). Here, the BIA properly denied Kaceli’s motion to reopen as untimely because he filed it almost eight years after his April 2001 final order of removal. *See id:,*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Although the time limits may be excused when the movant alleges changed country conditions, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (c)(7)(C)(ii), the BIA reasonably found that the evidence Kaceli submitted merely “demón-stratela] that there continues to exist a high degree of conflict between political parties in Albania.” Indeed, much of the evidence Kaceli included with his motion was previously available or reflected already ongoing civil strife in Albania rather than a material change in country conditions. Substantial evidence thus supports the BIA’s determination that Kaceli failed to establish changed country conditions. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(h); *see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,*546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008).

Moreover, on the record before us we cannot conclude that the BIA ignored any material evidence that Kaceli submitted or that the BIA failed to provide a sufficient explanation for its findings. Although the agency has an obligation to consider all evidence relevant to an applicant’s claim, it need not “expressly parse or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner.” *Jian Hui Shao,*546 F.3d at 169. Here, given the BIA’s references to the documentation submitted with the motion to reopen, it is apparent that the BIA considered Kaceli’s evidence and made reasonable findings based on the record. *See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*471 F.3d 315, 337 n. 17 (2d Cir.2006). Additionally, because Kaceli received a full and fair opportunity to present his claims, the BIA did not violate his due process rights. *See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*453 F.3d 99, 104-05 (2d Cir.2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).