
    Ranjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-437.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Sept. 18, 2015.
    Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, NY, for Petitioner.
    Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Jennifer Williams, Senior Litigation Counsel; Lance L. Jolley, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER .

Petitioner Ranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a January 22, 2014, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen proceedings. In re Ranjit Singh, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 22, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s admonition that such motions are “disfavored.” See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006) (citing INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992)). An alien seeking to reopen proceedings must move to reopen no later than ninety days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Singh moved to reopen more than 120 days after his order of removal became administratively final. While a motion to reopen proceedings to apply for asylum is exempt from the filing deadline if it is based on changed conditions arising in the country to which removal ’was ordered, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), Singh expressly states that he is not applying for asylum. Further, he does not argue that he is eligible for any other exception to the filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); Matter of Yauri, 25 I. & N. Dec. 103, 105 (B.I.A.2009)(noting that the 90-day filing deadline applies to “a motion to reopen in any case previously the subject of a final order of the Board,” unless the movant is applying for asylum and can show materially changed country conditions (emphasis added)). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion as untimely.

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).  