*599 SUMMARY ORDER
Parminder Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a November 13, 2009 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Parminder Singh, No. A077 479 912 (B.I.A. Nov. 13, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
As a preliminary matter, because Singh has failed to challenge sufficiently the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider before this Court, we deem any such arguments waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005).
We review the BIA’s denial of Singh’s motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006). An alien may file only one motion to reopen and must do so within ninety days of the final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, there is no time or numerical limitation if the alien establishes materially “changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Nevertheless, a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions must “be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s untimely motion to reopen. As the BIA found, the attorney affirmation Singh submitted as the lone piece of evidence in support of his motion was inadequate because it was based solely upon “information and belief’ and failed to reference any affidavits, reports, or other evidence to support the assertions therein. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B). Moreover, although Singh cited to the 2009 International Religious Freedom Report for India in his motion, he failed to submit a copy of that report to the BIA. Likewise, although both the motion and attorney affirmation state that Singh’s wife intends to return with him to India, Singh failed to provide an affidavit from either himself or his wife to support this assertion.
In fact, Singh failed to produce any of the affidavits or documentary evidence of changed country conditions necessary to excuse the untimely filing of his motion to reopen. We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s denial of Singh’s motion. See Alam v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir.2006) (upholding BIA’s refusal to reopen when petitioner’s evidence failed to show changed country conditions).
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.