Albana NDOCI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 466 F. App'x 59

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Albana Ndoci, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of the May 29, 2009, order of the BIA denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. In re Albana Ndoci, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 29, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this 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).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ndoci’s motion to reopen as untimely, as she filed it more than seven months after the BIA’s order upholding the immigration judge’s underlying merits decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Although the time limitation does not apply to a motion to reopen seeking to apply for asylum “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Ndoci did not demonstrate a change in country conditions in Albania.

The evidence submitted indicated a continuation, from the time of Ndoci’s initial application to the time of her motion to reopen, of police abuses, violence against women, electoral deficiencies, divisiveness between the Socialist Party and the Democratic Party, and the control of local authorities in Tirana by the Socialist Party. Because the evidence demonstrated a continuation of the same conditions, the BIA reasonably concluded that there had not been a change in conditions. See Jian Hui Shao v.

Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008) (holding that when the agency explicitly considers relevant evidence of country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, this Court reviews the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard). There is no indication that the BIA failed to consider any evidence. See Wei Guang Wang v. BIA 437 F.3d 270, 274-75 (2d Cir.2006). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.