
    Wenju WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-2090-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 8, 2010.
    Dehai Zhang, Flushing, New York, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matthew A. Spurlock, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROBERT D. SACK, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Wenju Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 30, 2009 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Wenju Wang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 30, 2009). 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 final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). Here, the BIA properly denied Wang’s motion to reopen as untimely because he filed it almost six years after his January 2003 final order of removal. See id.; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

The 90-day filing deadline may be equitably tolled if the alien can establish “changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality....” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Here, however, the BIA reasonably concluded that recent activities relating to China’s suppression of political dissent on the internet did not constitute changed country conditions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Furthermore, there is no merit to Wang’s argument that he was not required to show changed country conditions in order to excuse the untimely filing of his motion to reopen. Yuen Jin v. Mulcasey, 538 F.3d 143, 156 (2d Cir.2008). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Wang’s motion.

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(b).  