Abu Naser petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen his deportation proceedings to consider his renewed applications for asylum and for withholding of deportation.

Naser argues that the BIA erred in affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, voluntary departure, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Naser also argues that the immigration judge erred by failing to presume that he had a well-founded fear of persecution. These arguments are an attempt to challenge the underlying decision of the immigration judge, which is not at issue in this petition. This court does not have jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s decision, affirmed by the BIA, because Naser did not file a petition for review from that decision, as Naser admitted in his affidavit accompanying his motion to reopen. Naser timely filed his petition for review as to the denial of the motion to reopen, and therefore, this court may review that order only. **

*650 Naser argues that the BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen because new facts indicate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. He contends that persecution suffered by his family members, and the threat he received from the present political party in power in Bangladesh, rise to the level to qualify him for withholding of removal or asylum.

Naser has failed to show that country conditions in Bangladesh have changed such that Naser is now entitled to asylum or withholding of deportation. The evidence submitted in Naser’s motion to reopen is not different in type or quality from the evidence submitted during his initial asylum hearing, and thus falls short of showing that conditions in Bangladesh have changed in a way that would materially affect Naser’s asylum or withholding claims. Ogbemudia v. I.N.S., 988 F.2d 595, 599-600 (5th Cir. 1993). We have reviewed the record and the BIA’s order denying Naser’s motion to reopen and we find no abuse of discretion. Ogbemudia, 988 F.2d at 600. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.