C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (c)(7)(C)(ii), substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Kadria did not demonstrate a change in country conditions in Albania. The evidence submitted indicated a continuation, from the time of Kadria’s initial application to the time of his motion to reopen, of political violence and divisiveness between the Socialist Party and the Democratic Party, as well as the election of the Democratic Party to power. Because the evidence did not document any current harm to Democratic Party supporters, let alone an increase in such harm since the time of Kadria’s hearing in 2001, the BIA reasonably concluded that Kadria had not demonstrated a material change in conditions. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). There is no indication that the BIA failed to
holding that in evaluating evidence of changed country conditions the bia compares the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below holding that the bia abused its discretion when it denied petitioners motion to reopen by failing to consider evidence of country conditions holding that when the agency explicitly considers relevant evidence of country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen this court reviews the agencys factual findings under the substantial evidence standard holding that the state department country report constituted substantial evidence to support the agencys finding of changed country conditions in guatemala holding that in determining whether evidence accompanying a motion to reopen demonstrates a material change in country conditions that would justify reopening we compare the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below