
    Rakesh KUMAR; Ranjila Devi, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72716.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 13, 2010.
    Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioners.
    Brendan Paul Hogan, Esquire, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rakesh Kumar and his wife, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish changed country conditions in Fiji to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); 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.”).

We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to consider all relevant evidence in deciding their motion to reopen. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2000) (absent evidence to the contrary, the BIA is presumed to have considered all the evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     