
    CHUN HONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-4186-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Nov. 18, 2009.
    Yimin Chen, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Asst. Atty. General; Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director; Tracie N. Jones, Trial Atty.; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JON 0. NEWMAN and PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Chun Hong, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 31, 2007 order of the BIA denying his third motion to reopen. In re Chun Hong, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 31, 2007). 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. 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).

The BIA did not err in denying Hong’s motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Hong argues that the BIA erred in concluding that the evidence he submitted failed to demonstrate either material changed country conditions sufficient to excuse the applicable time and numerical limitations or his prima facie eligibility for relief from removal. However, these arguments fail because we have previously reviewed the BIA’s consideration of evidence similar to that which Hong submitted and have found no error in its conclusion that such evidence is insufficient to establish material changed country conditions or a reasonable possibility of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169-72 (noting that “[w]e do not ourselves attempt to resolve conflicts in record evidence, a task largely within the discretion of the agency”); see also Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir.2006) (noting that while the BIA must consider evidence such as “the oft-cited Aird affidavit, which [it] is asked to consider time and again[,] ... it may do so in summary fashion without a reviewing court presuming that it has abused its discretion”).

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(b).  