Case Name: FONG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-08
Citations: 380 F. App'x 81
Docket Number: No. 08-4290-ag
Parties: FONG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 380
Pages: 81–82

Head Matter:
FONG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-4290-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 8, 2010.
Henry Zhang, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Barry J. Pettinato, Assistant Director, Carmel A. Morgan, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL and DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Fong Chen, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of an August 8, 2008 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his exclusion proceedings. In re Fong Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 8, 2008). 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 relevant final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). The 90-day filing deadline and numerical limitation may be excused if the alien can establish "changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality." 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Here, the BIA properly denied Chen's motion to reopen as untimely because he filed it almost ten years after his June 1995 final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
Contrary to Chen's argument, a reasonable fact-finder would not be compelled to conclude that the BIA ignored any of the evidence that he submitted. The BIA is not required to "expressly parse or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner" as long as it "has given reasoned consideration to the petition[] and made adequate findings." Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 337 n. 17 (2d Cir.2006). Here, the BIA considered Chen's evidence in some detail and concluded that it did not demonstrate a material change in country conditions. Although Chen disputes that conclusion, his arguments are foreclosed by this Court's decision in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 156—65 (2d Cir.2008). On this record, the BIA's denial of Chen's motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
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).
. Both Chen and the Government note that the BIA order under review failed to address our November 2007 decision, which superseded an earlier June 2007 decision. Chen does not, however, suggest that this error constitutes a basis for remand. In any event, remand would be futile because, as the Government asserts, the BIA's decision adequately addressed the concerns raised in the November 2007 decision. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338-40 (2d Cir.2006).
. We do not consider Chen's argument that he faces economic persecution on account of his violation of the Chinese family planning policy, as the argument is unexhausted. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir.2007).