
    MEI RONG WENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-4239-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 26, 2010.
    
      Charles Christophe, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
    Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stefanie Notari-no Hennes, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as the respondent in this case.
    
   PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, ROSEMARY S. POOLER and ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Mei Rong Weng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the July 28, 2008 order of the BIA denying her March 2008 motion to reopen. In re Mei Rong Weng, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. July 28, 2008). 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).

Because it is undisputed that Weng’s March 2008 motion to reopen was filed nearly four years after the BIA’s April 2004 decision, the BIA properly observed that her motion would be denied as untimely, unless she established that she was newly eligible for asylum based on changed circumstances arising in China. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(h). Contrary to Weng’s arguments, the BIA acknowledged the evidence she submitted in support of her motion and her corresponding assertion that conditions in China had changed since her January 2003 hearing before the IJ. The BIA reasonably observed, however, that Weng’s motion offered only a discussion of conditions in China at the time she filed her motion, and failed to articulate how that evidence demonstrated a change in conditions that was relevant to her claims for relief. Before this Court, Weng offers no persuasive argument that the BIA erred in concluding that while the record evidence showed that China continued to have a poor human rights record with respect to its family planning policy, its enforcement of that policy had not worsened in any material respect, nor had conditions changed in a way that gave rise to a new asylum claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Accordingly, we find that the BIA’s denial of Weng’s motion as untimely was not an abuse of discretion. See Ali, 448 F.3d at 517.

Finally, because we lack jurisdiction to do so, we decline to consider Weng’s argument that the BIA erred in failing to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen her removal proceedings. See id. at 518.

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. The 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).  