MEMORANDUM **

Ishri Prasad and his wife Doreen Shalini Sukhdeo, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their *685 motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Prasad’s motion to reopen because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and because Prasad failed to present sufficient evidence of 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); 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.