
    Victor Manuel RUELAS-PRECIADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72034.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010 .
    Filed Jan. 19, 2010.
    Victor Manuel Ruelas Preciado, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, DOJ— 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: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Manuel Ruelas Preciado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen the underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal, and alleging changed country conditions and seeking relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because petitioner’s motion was untimely filed and failed to meet an exception to the time limits on motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Petitioner’s claim for protection under CAT failed to present changed country conditions in Mexico that are material to petitioner or his circumstances, and therefore petitioner failed to meet his burden of presenting a prima facie CAT claim to support reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Ka-malthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir.2001). In addition, the BIA did not err in concluding that petitioner’s failure to voluntarily depart within the departure period rendered him ineligible for cancellation relief for a period of ten years. See Barroso v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir.2005)

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