
    Alpha Amadou DIALLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-5094-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 24, 2012.
    
      Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Leslie McKay, Assistant Director; Anna Nelson, Trial Attorney; Brad Hopkins, Law Clerk, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Present: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review is DENIED.

Alpha Amadou Diallo, a native and citizen of Guinea, seeks review of a November 19, 2010, order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Alpha Amadou Diallo, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 19, 2010). 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 Kaur v. BIA 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Although Diallo’s 2010 motion to reopen was untimely filed, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), the BIA appears to have assumed that Diallo met an exception to the time limitation by showing changed country conditions, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), and instead denied the motion based on Diallo’s failure to demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for relief. We find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s decision.

To establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, a movant must demonstrate “a realistic chance that he will be able to establish eligibility” during reopened proceedings. Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70, 78 (2d Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). A failure to establish prima facie eligibility is reasonable grounds for the BIA to deny reopening. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). While Diallo contends that conditions in Guinea have worsened, his underlying asylum claim — that the government seeks to persecute him on the basis of his prior political activism as a student — is the same claim that the agency previously found not credible. In light of the agency’s prior adverse credibility determination, the BIA reasonably accorded the letter from Dial-lo’s cousin limited evidentiary weight. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir.2007). Because Diallo submitted no other objective evidence to support his claim that the Guinean government continued to seek him out because of his political activities or to show that his family was harmed because Guinean officials were tai'geting him, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that he failed to demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for asylum. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir.2008); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 162 (2d Cir.2008).

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).  