SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Sheng Qui Dong, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a February 9, 2011, decision of the BIA, denying his motion to remand proceedings to the immigration judge (“IJ”). In re Sheng Qui Dong, No. A078 743 440 (B.I.A. Feb. 9, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We review the BIA’s decision to deny a motion to remand for abuse of discretion. Li Yong Cao v. Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 156 (2d Cir. 2005). An alien seeking a remand for consideration of new evidence must demonstrate that the evidence to be offered “is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).

Dong does not meaningfully challenge the BIA’s dispositive determination that his evidence of ineffective assistance was previously available and could have been presented in his prior appeal to the BIA. See Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988). While Dong asserts that he pursued his ineffective assistance claim diligently, he does not argue that his evidence was unavoidable at the time of his first appeal to the BIA, nor does he articulate any steps he took to obtain evidence between the time he first became aware of his prior counsel’s possible misconduct (in 2004) and when he submitted documents in support of his claim (in November 2006), after the BIA had already dismissed his first appeal of this issue for failure to comply with Matter of Lozada See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also Cekic v. INS, 435 F.3d 167, 171 (2d Cir. 2006); Jian Hua Wang v. BIA, 508 F.3d 710, 715 (2d Cir. 2007).

The agency therefore did not abuse its discretion in declining to remand for further consideration of his claim. Because this finding is dispositive of Dong’s claims, *109 we decline to reach the agency’s alternative bases for rejecting his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or denying asylum. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25, 97 S.Ct. 200, 50 L.Ed.2d 190 (1976).

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).