
    DAN FENG LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72548.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 23, 2011.
    
      Peter L. Quan, Law Offices of Peter L. Quan, PLLC, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Nehal Kamani, Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dan Feng Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 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, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lin’s motion to reopen as untimely because Lin filed it over three years after the BIA issued its final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Lin failed to demonstrate changed country conditions, including a change in laws or the enforcement of family planning laws, to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 988-989 (9th Cir.2009); He, 501 F.3d at 1132-33.

We reject Lin’s contention that the BIA erred in its evaluation of the evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). We also reject Lin’s contention that the BIA did not adequately examine her evidence because she has 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.
     