Jubani AGOSTIN, a.k.a. Zef Gjon Volaj, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent, 363 F. App'x 107

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Jubani Agostin, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of an August 12, 2008 order of the BIA denying his motions to reopen and reconsider. In re Jubani Agostin, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 12, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. As a preliminary matter, we lack jurisdiction to consider Agostin’s argument that the BIA should have reopened his proceedings sua sponte. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); Azmond Alt v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir.2006).

Because Agostin fails to challenge the BIA’s denial of his untimely motion to reconsider, we deem any such argument waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Ali, 448 F.3d at 517. Here, the BIA properly denied Agostin’s motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed over a year after his 2006 final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (providing that an applicant must file a motion to reopen within ninety days of the final administrative decision).

Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Agostin failed to present material evidence of changed country conditions sufficient to satisfy the exception to the time limitation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-105, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). Contrary to Agostin’s argument that the BIA failed to consider the evidence he submitted, the BIA explicitly found two inconsistencies between that new evidence and the evidence already in the record. Agostin failed to explain these inconsistencies.

Particularly where the IJ had already found that Agostin was not credible, a finding we previously affirmed, we find no basis to disturb the agency’s denial of Agostin’s motion. See Kaur v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 413 F.3d 232, 233-34 (2d Cir.2005); Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 147-48 (2d Cir.2007). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. The pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.