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:T44a,MEMORANDUM Sergio Orlando Curin-Franco, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Curin-Franco’s motion to reopen as untimely because he filed it more than one year after the BIA’s final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Curin-Franco failed to demonstrate changed country conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); see also He, 501 F.3d at 1132 (changed personal circumstances insufficient to support an untimely motion to reopen). Curin-Franco’s remaining contentions are unavailing. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T47c,

MEMORANDUM

Sergio Orlando Curin-Franco, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Curin-Franco’s motion to reopen as untimely because he filed it more than one year after the BIA’s final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Curin-Franco failed to demonstrate changed country conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); see also He, 501 F.3d at 1132 (changed personal circumstances insufficient to support an untimely motion to reopen).

Curin-Franco’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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