Case Name: ZHOU SUN NI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-13
Citations: 396 F. App'x 717
Docket Number: No. 09-3620-ag
Parties: ZHOU SUN NI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, PETER W. HALL and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 717–718

Head Matter:
ZHOU SUN NI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-3620-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Oct. 13, 2010.
Galab B. Dhungana, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Jennifer J. Keeney, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation; Matthew B. George, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, PETER W. HALL and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner, Zhou Sun Ni, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of a July 28, 2009, order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Zhou Sun Ni, No. [ A XXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 28, 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. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006).
An alien may only file one motion to reopen and must do so within 90 days of the final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Ni's motion to reopen — filed over six years after the BIA issued a final order in his case — -was untimely. However, there is no time limitation if the alien establishes materially "changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality if such evidence . was not available . at the previous hearing." 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h).
Although Ni argues that his former wife's testimony will corroborate his own prior testimony that he was forcibly sterilized and was not previously available, the BIA properly noted that such evidence does not establish a change in country conditions, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ni's motion to reopen. See Ali, 448 F.3d at 517.
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).