
    Victoria MISHUSTINA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-70513.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 18, 2010.
    R. Wayne McMillan, Law Office of R. Wayne McMillan, Pasadena, CA, David P. Nigro, Benjamin William Reeves, Esquire, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Christine Noel Kohl, Esquire, Oil, Russell John Verby, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victoria Mishustina petitions for review of a final decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reopen a proceeding in which she was denied asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231(b)(3), and denying her motion for reinstatement of voluntary departure, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229c.

A motion to reopen must ordinarily be filed within ninety days after the final decision of the BIA. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Mishustina’s was not. Mi-shustina seeks to avail herself of the exception to the timing requirement for cases in which there are “changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” Id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). But to show changed circumstances, Mi-shustina points only to Russian laws that had already been enacted at the time of her hearing. These laws could have been discovered or presented at Mishustina’s original hearing. Her motion to reopen was untimely.

The BIA reviewed Mishustina’s motion to reopen under its established standard for untimely motions to reopen. In re Beckford, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1216 (BIA 2000). The BIA did not abuse its discretion by failing to reopen based upon the limited evidence that Mishustina presented. See He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir.2007).

Mishustina’s petition for review also suggests that the BIA abused its discretion in refusing to reinstate her voluntary departure. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to grant or deny a request for voluntary departure. Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir.2004) (order).

The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     