
    CHUN YONG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-1538-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 9, 2012.
    Charles Christophe, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Senior Litigation Counsel; Andrew N. O’Malley, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, GUIDO CALABRESI, and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Chun Yong Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 25, 2011, order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Chun Yong Chen, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 25, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

We have reviewed the agency’s denial of Chen’s motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam).

Because Chen’s motion to reopen was untimely, he was required to establish changed country conditions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). Chen presented the agency with evidence describing the persecution of Christians in China from 2008 to 2010, but he did not present the BIA with any evidence about conditions for Christians in China in 1996, the time of his original merits hearing. In evaluating evidence of changed country conditions, the BIA “compare[s] the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below.” Matter of S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007). Accordingly, because Chen did not in 2010 present the BIA with any evidence about conditions in China in 1996, the BIA reasonably concluded that he failed to demonstrate a change in conditions that would justify reopening. See id.; accord Moosa v. Holder, 644 F.3d 380, 386-87 (7th Cir.2011) (upholding BIA’s finding that applicant had not established changed country conditions because she did not present evidence about conditions in Pakistan as they had existed at the time of her 2001 merits hearing to provide a “baseline for comparison” and thus did not establish that there had been a change in the influence of the Taliban since that time). Because the BIA reasonably concluded that Chen did not establish a change in country conditions, it did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.  