
    Yohanes TASIK, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-4989.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 22, 2012.
    Yohanes Tasik, Avenel, NJ, pro se.
    Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director; Jeffery R. Leist, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROBERT D. SACK, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Yohanes Tasik, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of an October 27, 2011, order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Yohanes Tasik, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 27, 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) (internal citation omitted). 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 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), unless the motion is “based on changed country conditions arising in the [petitioner’s] country of nationality,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Here, there is no dispute that Tasik’s 2011 motion was untimely and number-barred, because he previously filed a motion to reopen in 2008, and his administrative order of removal became final in 2005. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

In his brief, Tasik argues that the BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen because the pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia is “ongoing.” However, as Tasik fails to argue changed conditions in Indonesia since his previous hearing in 2004, as required for untimely and number-barred motions to reopen, Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007), he has waived any challenge to the BIA’s finding that his motion to reopen is both untimely and number-barred, see Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).

To the extent Tasik challenges the BIA’s determination not to reopen his proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to consider a challenge to that purely discretionary determination. Ali, 448 F.3d at 518. To the extent Tasik requests that we take judicial notice of documents' he submitted with his brief that are outside the administrative record, that request is denied. Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 269-70 (2d Cir.2007); accord 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).

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).  