MEMORANDUM **

Jun Zeng, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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 the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zeng’s motion to reopen because it was untimely and Zeng failed to present evidence of changed circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); 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 legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.