MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Saenz-Kobel petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. In 1997, Saenz-Kobel conceded removability for an Arizona drug smuggling conviction and waived appeal. Saenz-Kobel filed his motion to reopen more than ten years after the immigration judge ordered him removed. This was untimely because motions to reopen must be filed within 90 days of a final administrative order of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Saenz-Kobel’s removal order became administratively final when he waived appeal in 1997. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.39.

Saenz-Kobel argues that Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007), is an intervening change in the law that renders his previous removal order unlawful. His argument is incorrect. An intervening change of law is not an excuse for filing an untimely motion to reopen. Avila-Sanchez v. Mulcasey, 509 F.3d 1037, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2007). Further, Saenz-Kobel’s reliance on Ruiz-Vidal is misplaced, as that case considered the government’s burden of proof in demonstrating that an alien is removable under INA section 237(a)(2)(B)(i). Ruiz-Vidal did not consider a situation where the petitioner conceded removability. In any event, Ruiz-Vidal is not an intervening change in *593 the law. See Matter of Paulus, 11 I. & N. Dec. 274, 1965 WL 12279 (BIA 1965).

Petition DENIED.