SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioners Djenaba Camara and Mama-dou Alou Kante, natives and citizens of Guinea, seek review of a November 13, 2009, decision of the BIA denying their untimely motion to reopen based on changed country conditions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); In re Djenaba Camara, Mamadou Alou Kante, Nos. A077 901 839/840 (B.I.A. Nov. 13, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

On petitions for review of denied statutory motions to reopen, we review the BIA’s conclusions of law de novo. Luna v. Holder, 637 F.3d 85, 102 (2d Cir. 2011). When the BIA has applied the correct law, we review its decision for abuse of discretion. Id.; Iavorski v. U.S. INS, 232 F.3d 124, 128 (2d Cir. 2000). To reopen removal proceedings to apply or reapply for asylum after the time for filing a motion to reopen has passed, the motion must establish both changed country conditions and prima fa-cie eligibility for relief. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008).

The BIA did not err in concluding that petitioners failed to demonstrate their pri-ma facie eligibility for relief based on their opposition to female genital mutilation (“FGM”) because they did not submit evidence of their active or public opposition to FGM, see Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008) (providing that “an alien must make some showing that authorities in his country of nationality are either aware of his activities or likely to become aware of his activities” in *11 order to establish a well-founded fear of persecution), and because the country conditions evidence did not indicate that such individuals are persecuted.

Petitioners argue that the BIA overlooked material evidence in concluding that petitioners could not establish eligibility for relief based solely on their daughters’ likely subjection to FGM. Petitioners’ argument is unavailing because the BIA concluded, as a matter of law, that a parent may not obtain relief based solely on his or her daughter’s risk of FGM. As petitioners have not challenged the BIA’s legal conclusion and interpretation of In re A-K-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 275 (BIA 2007), we consider that issue abandoned on appeal. See State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Inversiones Errazuriz Limitada, 374 F.3d 158, 172 (2d Cir. 2004).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.