
    Sajid IQBAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73140.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 12, 2012.
    Alan Hutchison, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.
    
      Allison Frayer, Kristofer Ryan Mc-donald, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sajid Iqbal, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. 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 Iqbal’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed almost four years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Iqbal failed to present evidence that constituted a material change in Pakistan, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed). Further, we reject Iqbal’s contention that the BIA did not adequately review the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record). Further, Iqbal’s contention that the BIA did not conduct an individualized analysis of country conditions is belied by the record.

Finally, we reject Iqbal’s request for judicial notice. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

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