
    Claudette JEAN-JACQUES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-956-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 21, 2011.
    Glenn L. Formica, Formica, PC, New Haven, CT, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior Litigation Counsel; Imran R. Zaidi, Tidal Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JON 0. NEWMAN, REENA RAGGI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner, Claudette Jean-Jacques, a native and citizen of Haiti, seeks review of a February 18, 2010, decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. In re Claudette Jean-Jacques, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 18, 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. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006). When the BIA considers relevant evidence of country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, 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).

In denying her motion to reopen, the BIA concluded that Jean-Jacques failed to satisfy her “heavy burden” because the new evidence she submitted in support of her motion did not explain why Jean-Jacques would be persecuted given that she “left Haiti more than 18 years ago” and had “not shown that any individual or group in Haiti [had] a current interest in persecuting her on account of a protected ground.” See Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 156 (2d Cir.2005) (observing that reopening merited only where alien has demonstrated a likelihood that the new evidence would alter the outcome).

On appeal, Jean-Jacques asserts that her new evidence demonstrated changed country conditions and, if presented to the IJ, would have altered the result in her case. To the contrary, the evidence Jean-Jacques submitted indicated that the Lávalas Party had been barred from elections since 2000, and described the 2009 election boycott ordered by Lavalas leaders as “non-violent.” Indeed, the evidence that Jean-Jacques submitted contained no indication that violence against current Lavalas Party members had increased in any way, much less against members who, like Jean-Jacques, left Haiti more than 18 years ago. Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider articles that did not mention the Lavalas Party or the treatment of its members at the hands of the Haitian government. See id.

Because the evidence Jean-Jacques submitted in support of her motion did not indicate that she would be subject to persecution or torture, she failed to demonstrate that the new evidence would produce a different result in her case. See id.; see also Sanusi v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 193, 201 (2d Cir.2006). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to reopen. See Ali, 448 F.3d at 517.

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).  