
    SHING LIN, aka Shen Lin, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-1370-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 4, 2012.
    Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY, for petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; David Bernal, Assistant Director; Jesse M. Bless, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, Joseph m. McLaughlin, reena RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Shing Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a March 22, 2011, order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Shing Lin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 22, 2011). 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. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Lin’s 2010 motion to reopen as untimely, as he filed it nearly eight years after his final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i).

Although the time limits on motions to reopen may be excused when the movant demonstrates changed countiy conditions, id. § 1229a (c)(7)(C)(ii), as the BIA concluded, only Lin’s personal circumstances had changed, as his claim was based on the fact that he joined the Chinese Democratic Party in 2008 while in the United States, see Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 274 (2d Cir.2006). Moreover, the BIA reasonably declined to give weight to Lin’s evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. BIA, 465 F.3d 497, 501 (2d Cir.2006) (holding that this Court generally defers to the agency regarding the weight of evidence).

The BIA also reasonably determined that Lin failed to demonstrate any change in China, because the evidence showed that current conditions were similar to those at the time of his original hearing. See In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007) (“In determining whether evidence accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material change in country conditions that would justify reopening, we compare the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below.”).

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).  