
    Sukhjinder Kaur SANDHU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-75962.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 12, 2006.
    
    Decided June 16, 2006.
    Sukhjinder Kaur Sandhu, Kent, WA, pro se.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, * CA, Janice K. Redfern, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The clerk is directed to correct the docket to reflect the correct spelling of petitioner’s last name.
    
    
      
      The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sukhjinder Kaur Sandhu, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying as untimely her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, see Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Sandhu’s motion to reopen as untimely because Sandhu filed her motion two years after the BIA’s decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of BIA’s decision), and failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

We do not consider Sandhu’s challenge to the agency’s adverse credibility determination, made in the context of her underlying asylum claim. See Sandhu v. Ashcroft, No. 02-72929 (upholding agency’s denial of Sandhu’s application for asylum).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       yjgjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     