SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Ilir Ujkaj, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of the March 21, 2012, order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Ilir Ujkaj, No. A079 327 477 (B.I.A. Mar. 21, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We review the BIA’s denial of Ujkaj’s motion for abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). Because Ujkaj’s petition is timely only with respect to the denial of reopening, we lack jurisdiction to consider his challenge to the underlying adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89 (2d Cir. 2001).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ujkaj’s 2011 motion to reopen as untimely, because he filed it more than 90 days after the BIA’s 2005 final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although the time limitation does not apply if a motion is based on material, previously unavailable evidence of “changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (c)(7)(C)(ii), substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Ujkaj did not demonstrate a change in conditions in Albania.

The expert opinion Ujkaj submitted indicated a continuation, from the time of Ujkaj’s merits hearing to the time of his motion to reopen, of sporadic political violence and divisiveness between the Socialist and Democratic Parties in Albania. It also reflected the rise of the Democratic Party to power, which we have previously considered to be evidence of improved conditions. See Hoxhallari v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 179, 185-86 (2d Cir. 2006). Both Ujkaj’s uncle and his expert witness indicated that officials under Democratic Party rule, like their Socialist Party predecessors, refused the return of confiscated land to landowners, like Ujkaj. The failure to return the land, therefore, reflects no change in conditions.

The BIA did not err in its treatment of Ujkaj’s evidence. Contrary to Ujkaj’s assertion, the BIA did not rely on U.S. State Department reports to discredit the expert; it simply refused to credit the expert’s unsupported assertion that such reports are inaccurate. Ujkaj also submitted an asylum statement from his sister, but the events she described occurred pri- or to Ujkaj’s 2004 hearing, and necessarily could not reflect any change thereafter. Because the evidence did not show any increase in harm to Democratic Party members or landowners attempting to reclaim confiscated lands, the BIA reasonably concluded that Ujkaj had not demonstrated a material change in conditions. See Hoxhallari, 468 F.3d at 185-86.

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 peti *88 tion 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).