22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4c4,MEMORANDUM Cesar Antonio Hernandez-Mejia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hemandez-Mejia’s motion to reopen as untimely where his motion was filed almost two years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and he failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii). We lack jurisdiction to consider Hernandez-Mejia’s contentions regarding the BIA’s March 10, 2006 and November 21, 2007 orders, because this petition for review is not timely as to those orders. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4f6,

MEMORANDUM

Cesar Antonio Hernandez-Mejia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hemandez-Mejia’s motion to reopen as untimely where his motion was filed almost two years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and he failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Hernandez-Mejia’s contentions regarding the BIA’s March 10, 2006 and November 21, 2007 orders, because this petition for review is not timely as to those orders. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.