
    MING HUI ZHOU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-2489-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 22, 2010.
    
      Nathan Weill, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director; Kristina R. Sracic, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, josé a. cabranes and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Ming Hui Zhou, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the May 29, 2009 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Ming Hui Zhou, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. May 29, 2009). 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, Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006), mindful of the Supreme Court’s admonition that motions to reopen are “disfavored,” see Maghradze v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 150, 154 (2d Cir.2006). Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhou’s motion to reopen based on his failure to establish his prima facie eligibility for relief. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988).

Athough Zhou argues that the BIA erred in failing to consider whether the article he submitted established his prima facie eligibility for relief based on the theory of imputed political opinion, it is not apparent how the article indicates that the government imputed any particular political opinion to him or other protesters. Moreover, as the BIA found, the article concerned events in a province other than Zhou’s own, making it of little probative value. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.”).

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider the statement of Zhou’s friend because that statement was not previously unavailable. See id. Indeed, the statement describes events that occurred prior to Zhou’s hearing, including some events at which Zhou was allegedly present.

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).  