SUMMARY ORDER
Gamini Kalansuriya, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of an August 18, 2011, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Gamini Kalansuriya, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 18, 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) (per curiam). There is no dispute that Kalansuriya’s motion to reopen was untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA issued its final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
Kalansuriya contends, however, that his untimely filing should be excused because he obtained new and material evidence demonstrating that failed asylum seekers and criminal deportees who are returned to Sri Lanka are routinely persecuted or tortured by the Sri Lankan government. *52See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). We conclude that the BIA’s denial of Kalansuriya’s motion to reopen as untimely was not an abuse of discretion.
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B), the movant bears the burden of supporting his motion to reopen with relevant evidence. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988). “In determining whether evidence accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material change in country conditions that would justify reopening, [the BIA] compare[s] the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below.” In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A.2007); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (3) (ii). Because Kalansuriya failed properly to support his motion with any evidence describing conditions in Sri Lanka for returning asylum seekers or criminal deportees at the time of his 2008 merits hearing, we conclude that the BIA’s finding of no materially changed country conditions is supported by substantial evidence and that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen on that basis. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008).
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).