
    Usha LATA; Yasuyuki Suzuki, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74602.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 16, 2011.
    Thipphavone Ark, Law Office of Thip-phavone Ark, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David Nicholas Harling, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Usha Lata, a native and citizen of Fiji, and her husband, Yasuyuki Suzuki, a native and citizen of Japan, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their 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, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Fiji to qualify for an exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97.

We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA did not adequately examine their evidence because they have not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006).

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