
    Harpreet Singh THIND, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74430.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 7, 2010.
    Olumide Kolawole Obayemi, Esquire, The Law Offices of Olumide K. Obayemi, San Leandro, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kevin James Conway, Esquire, Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, 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: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Harpreet Singh Thind, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, 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 Thind’s motion to reopen as untimely because Thind filed it nearly two years after the BIA issued its final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Thind failed to demonstrate changed country conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed country conditions immaterial).

We decline to reconsider Thind’s contentions regarding the BIA’s July 18, 2005, order affirming the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination, because this court previously decided those issues in Thind v. Gonzales, 218 Fed.Appx. 607 (9th Cir.2007). See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991) (explaining that under the “law of the case doctrine,” one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).

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