Pеtition for review denied by published opinion. Judge GREGORY wrote the opinion, in which Judge NIEMEYER and Judge DAVIS joined.
OPINION
Fabrice K. Sadhvani, a native and citizen of Togo, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen his asylum application after we remanded his case for consideration of the issues in light of our opinion in
William v. Gonzales,
I.
A.
Sadhvani entered the United States on a non-immigrant student visa on May 26, 1996, and was authorized to remain until March 30, 1997. He applied for asylum in June 1997, and removal proceedings were initiated against him in July when he was served with a nоtice to appear before the immigration court. He sought relief in the form of an application for asylum, withholding of remоval and protection under the Convention Against Torture at a hearing on the merits. The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Sadhvani’s applicatiоns for relief, and granted him voluntary departure until November 2,1998, with a removal order to take effect in the event that he did not depart from the United States. The IJ ruled that his testimony was not credible and that he failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecutiоn. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision in December 2002, and in response, Sadhvani filed a motion to reopen his asylum application. The BIA dеnied the motion on February 14, 2003, and Sadhvani filed a motion to reconsider, which was also denied. On April 7, 2003, the United States Immigration and Naturalizаtion Service (“INS”) issued a warrant of removal based on the final order of removal issued by the IJ on September 1,1998.
B.
On December 15, 2005, Sadhvаni filed his second motion to reopen, which is at issue in this appeal. In his second motion to reopen, he argued that his application was entitled to further review under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)®, which excepts motions which are based on changed coun *182 try conditions from the filing deаdline requirement. He simultaneously requested a stay of his removal, which the BIA denied on December 22, 2005. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) removed Sadhvani to Togo on December 28, 2005, pursuant to the order of removal issued November 2, 1998. No notification of remоval was sent to the INS, despite Sadhvani’s pending motion to reopen.
On March 21, 2006, the BIA granted his motion to reopen, finding that Sadhvani “met thе standards for reopening based on new evidence of changed circumstances.” (J.A. 109.) 1 Because Sadhvani was no longer in the country, DHS filed a motion to reconsider the grant of Sadhvani’s motion to reopen in light of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d). DHS argued that the BIA did not have jurisdiction over the motion because Sadhvani was removed from the United States and therefore under the regulation, his motion was automatically withdrawn. Thе BIA granted the motion on February 28, 2007, and Sadhvani filed an appeal with this Court. We granted his petition for review and remanded his case to the BIA in light of our decision in William I. Upon remand, the BIA denied his motion to reopen on the ground that it was number-barred under Section 240(c)(7)(A) of the Immigrаtion and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). (J.A. 2.) Alternatively, the BIA found that even if his motion were not number-barred, the motion should be denied because Sаdhvani was not eligible for the relief he sought. Namely, under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1), only an alien who is “physically present in the United States” may apply for аsylum. It reasoned that because Sadhvani was removed pursuant to a valid removal order, he could not challenge his removаl, nor was he eligible for asylum. This appeal followed.
II.
This Court has jurisdiction to review Sadhvani’s petition of the BIA’s final order of removаl under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen asylum claims under the abuse of discretion standard.
Hui Zheng v. Holder,
III.
Petitioner argues that this Court should grant him extraordinary relief because of the injustice that inures when an aliеn is removed during the pendency of a motion to reopen. 2 The situation is further com *183 pounded where the BIA granted Sadhvani relief five months after he was dеported. He points to our opinion in William I to support the argument that his presence in the United States is irrelevant to whether or not his motion to reopen should be considered by the BIA. The government maintains that because Sadhvani was removed pursuant to a vаlid order of removal, and is no longer eligible for asylum, the order denying his motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion. Beсause the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sadhvani’s motion to reopen, we deny his petition for review.
In
William I,
we held that the regulation prоmulgated by the agency, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d), was invalid because it directly contradicted the statutory language in the INA which permitted one motion to rеopen with no restriction on the location from which it was filed.
William I,
IV.
Based on the foregoing, we deny the petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
Notes
. All references to the "J.A. — ” are to the Joint Appendix filed with the briefs in this case.
. Thе government noted in oral argument that it is common practice for aliens to be removed pursuant to valid orders of removаl during the pendency of a motion before the immigration court. The practice is checked by the availability of a stay of removal which would hold the order in abeyance while proceedings are pending. The motion for a stay was denied in this case.
. Bеcause we find the BIA was correct in holding that Sadhvani's claim was barred by the INA due to his presence outside the country, we need not consider the number-barred ground for denying Sadhvani relief.