
    Neima Abdillahi ALLE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-2970.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 15, 2014.
    Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, N.Y., for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Jennifer L. Lightbody, Assistant Director; Channah F. Norman, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, GERARD E. LYNCH and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Neima Abdillahi Alie, a native and citizen of Somalia, seeks review of a June 19, 2012, decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re Neima Abdillahi Alle, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. June 19, 2012). 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, mindful of the Supreme Court’s admonition that such motions are “disfavored.” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992)). When the BIA considers relevant evidence of country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008).

An alien must file a motion to reopen within 90 days of the agency’s final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although Alle’s motion was indisputably untimely because it was filed more than nine years after the agency’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), there is no time limitation for filing a motion to reopen if it is “based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (ii).

We find no error in the BIA’s determination that Alie failed to demonstrate materially changed country conditions excusing the untimely filing of her motion to reopen because the record evidence demonstrated continued systematic violence against women in Somalia since at least 1991, and did not indicate that conditions had materially worsened since Alle’s 1999 hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A.2007) (“In determining whether evidence accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material change in country conditions that would justify reopening, [the BIA] eompare[s] the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below.”). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alle’s motion to reopen as untimely, and we must deny the petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C).

Alie reinstated this case after it was tolled pursuant to In re Immigration Petitions for Review Pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 702 F.3d 160,160-61 (2d Cir.2012). Nothing in this order should inhibit the government from considering whether pursuing Alle’s removal to Somalia is low priority warranting administrative closure.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.  