Skumbin MACELARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 497 F. App'x 148

SUMMARY ORDER Skumbin Macelara, a native and citizen of the former Yugoslavia, in what is now Macedonia, seeks review of an October 13, 2011, order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Skumbin Macelara, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 13, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this 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) (per curiam).

A petitioner may file only one motion to reopen, and that motion must be filed within 90 days of the date the final administrative decision was rendered, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), unless the motion is based on material evidence of changed country conditions arising in the petitioner’s country of nationality, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Here, there is no dispute that Mace-lara’s 2011 motion was untimely and number-barred because he previously filed a motion to reopen and his administrative order of removal became final in 1996.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). In addition, the evidence of changed conditions in Macedonia submitted with Macelara’s motion, an affidavit by Balkan history professor Dr. Bernd Fischer, was insufficient to establish materially changed conditions in Macedonia since his last hearing. See Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N.

Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007) (“In determining whether evidence accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material change in country conditions that would justify reopening, [the BIA] compare[s] the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below.”); accord 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(3)(ii). The BIA considered the evidence in Dr.

Fischer’s affidavit of ethnic conflicts for Albanian Muslims, like Mace-lara, and reasonably concluded that ethnic tensions have been ongoing throughout the history of the region, and do not appear to have worsened in recent years. Macelara’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by “failing] to analyze the record as a whole” is not supported by the record, because the BIA considered the evidence he submitted of changed conditions in Macedonia, and provided adequate findings regarding that evidence. See Burger v.

Gonzales, 498 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir.2007) (“[t]o establish a violation of due process, an alien must show that [ ]he was denied a full and fair opportunity to present [his] claims or that the IJ or BIA otherwise deprived [him] of fundamental fairness” (internal quotation marks omitted)). To the extent Macelara argues that the BIA is “systematically denying” motions to reopen based on an “excessively high standard,” he has provided no evidence to support this claim. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188 n. 6, 104 S.Ct. 584, 78 L.Ed.2d 401 (1984) (statements of counsel in a brief are not evidence).

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). . Contrary to Macelara's assertion, the BIA credited Dr. Fischer as an expert in Balkan history.