OPINION

Xiang Qin Zheng, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his motion to reopen. Having carefully considered the record, 1 we conclude that the BIA’s decision — holding that Zheng failed to show materially changed circumstances in China sufficient to allow him to benefit from the exception to the general 90-day limitations period for motions to reopen, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)-(ii) — was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law,” and hence was not an abuse of discretion. Lin v. Att’y Gen., 700 F.3d 688, 685 (3d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Zheng did not show that conditions for Christians in China have materially worsened since the original immigration proceedings in his case. A change in personal circumstances, standing alone, cannot suffice to meet his burden. See Khan v. Att’y Gen., 691 F.3d 488, 497-98 (3d Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the petition for review will be denied.