Naidu

MEMORANDUM **

Subamma Tara Naidu, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Naidu’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed over a year after the BIA issued its final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Naidu failed to demonstrate material changed circumstances in Fiji 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 Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (“The critical question is ... whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a *324 legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution

Naidu’s contention that the BIA failed to consider some or all of the evidence presented with the motion to reopen fails,…