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:T45b,MEMORANDUM Shizeng Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhu’s motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the successive motion was filed more than four years after the BIA’s January 26, 2004, final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Zhu failed to establish changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number filing limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief sought in order to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T488,

MEMORANDUM

Shizeng Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhu’s motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the successive motion was filed more than four years after the BIA’s January 26, 2004, final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Zhu failed to establish changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number filing limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief sought in order to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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