MEMORANDUM **

Inderjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

We do not consider Singh’s contentions regarding the agency’s underlying decisions which were previously reviewed by this court in Singh v. Holder, 535 Fed. Appx. 551 (9th Cir. July 31, 2013).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), Singh failed to establish the evidence predating his July 2009 immigration hearing was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at his hearing, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), and Singh failed to establish his motion otherwise fell within the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA ignored his evidence or addressed it improperly. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (the BIA adequately *247 considered the evidence and sufficiently-announced its decision).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.