NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALOYSIUS PRAYOGO, No. 13-71924 Petitioner, Agency No. A079-195-331 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Aloysius Prayogo, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Prayogo’s second motion to reopen as untimely and numerically-barred where the motion was filed more than ten years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Prayogo failed to demonstrate changed country conditions in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (petitioner failed to show evidence was “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 13-71924