
    SONG KOU JIANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 07-5000-ag (L), 08-2085-ag (Con).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 31, 2010.
    Gang Zhou, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
    Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General; John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel; Briena L. Strippoli, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Song Kou Jiang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of: (1) an October 11, 2007 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen, In re Song Kou Jiang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2007); and (2) an April 18, 2008 order of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider and reopen, In re Song Kou Jiang, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 18, 2008). 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 or reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam); Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006). When the BIA considers relevant evidence of country conditions in evaluating a motion, 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).

The BIA did not err in denying Jiang’s untimely motions to reopen or his motion to reconsider. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). We have previously reviewed the BIA’s consideration of evidence similar to that which Jiang submitted and have found no error in its conclusion that such evidence is insufficient to establish either material changed country conditions excusing the untimely filing of a motion to reopen or a reasonable possibility of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169-72; see also Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir.2006). To the extent Jiang requests that we take judicial notice of documents outside the administrative record, that request is denied. See Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 269-70 (2d Cir.2007).

For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in these petitions is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in these petitions is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in these petitions is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).  