
    Razaq KHOKHAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-198-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 23, 2012.
    Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Keith I. McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel; Nairi S. Gruzenski, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, B.D. PARKER and REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Razaq Khokhar, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of a December 20, 2010, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Razaq Khokhar, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec. 20, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

We review the BIA’s denial of Khokhar’s motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006), and the BIA’s determination of changed country conditions for substantial evidence, Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008). An alien may file one motion to reopen within 90 days of the agency’s final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although Khokhar’s motion was indisputably untimely and number-barred because it was filed more than two years after the agency’s final order of removal and was his second motion, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A)(C)(i), there is no limitation on a motion filed to apply or reapply for asylum if it is “based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Here, Khokhar fails to challenge the BIA’s dispositive finding that he failed to satisfy this changed conditions exception, thus waiving any such argument. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 723 n. 6 (2d Cir.2007) (deeming arguments not raised before the Court abandoned). Accordingly, Khokhar’s failure to challenge the BIA’s dispositive finding is fatal to his petition for review.

Nevertheless, we note that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, as the evidence Khokhar submitted was available, could have been presented at his prior hearing, and did not establish a material change in country conditions since Khokhar’s May 2006 proceeding. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(h); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h).

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