*75 SUMMARY ORDER

Rong Ye, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 19, 2012, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider and reopen. In re Rong Ye, No. A094 789 122 (B.I.A. Oct. 19, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

The applicable standards of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168-69, 173 (2d Cir. 2008). As an initial matter, although, contrary to the government’s argument, Ye exhausted his argument that the BIA erred in the scope of its prior decision, he did so on remand and not in his motion to reconsider; therefore, the issue is not properly before us. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2001) (providing that when an alien files a timely petition for review from the denial of a motion, the Court may review only the denial of that motion and not the underlying agency decisions). Ye does not otherwise challenge the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ye’s motion to reopen. An alien’s “ability to secure reopening depends on a demonstration of prima facie eligibility for [relief], which means []he must show a realistic chance that the proffered new evidence would likely alter the result in h[is] case.” Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also INS v. Abudu 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988).

The BIA did not err in finding that Ye failed to establish his prima facie eligibility for relief based on his practice of Falun Gong because he did not submit any credible evidence showing that the Chinese government was, or would likely become, aware of his purported practice of Falun Gong. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168. Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ye’s motion to reopen. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 168; see also Abudu, 485 U.S. at 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904.

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 DENIED as moot.