Case Name: XIAN XIN XIA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-02
Citations: 192 F. App'x 36
Docket Number: No. 05-5175-ag
Parties: XIAN XIN XIA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondents.
Judges: PRESENT: Hon. B.D. PARKER, Hon. REENA RAGGI, Hon. RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 192
Pages: 36–37

Head Matter:
XIAN XIN XIA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondents.
No. 05-5175-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Aug. 2, 2006.
David X. Feng, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Mary Beth Buchanan, United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Christy Criswell Wiegand, Assistant United States Attorney, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Respondent.
PRESENT: Hon. B.D. PARKER, Hon. REENA RAGGI, Hon. RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Xian Xin Xia petitions for review of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We presume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
This Court reviews the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam). A motion to reopen must be filed with the BIA within ninety days of the final administrative decision, unless it is based on a change in country conditions under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Here Xia has alleged no change in country conditions. Instead, he simply reiterates the facts in his affidavit filed with the underlying motion. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Xia did not qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline and in denying Xia's motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
To the extent that Xia requests this Court to review the BIA's decision not to reopen his proceedings sua sponte, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review that decision. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir.2006). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED, in part, and DISMISSED, in part. Having 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 DENIED 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(d)(1).