
    Pushpamalar SATCHITHANANTHAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70845.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 14, 2013.
    Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, Esquire, Law Office of Visuvanathan Rudrakumar-an, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    
      Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, 
        see Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2), so we deny petitioner’s request for oral argument.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pushpamalar Satchithananthan, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 988, 986 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Satchithananthan’s second untimely motion to reopen because the information in the INS letter to the Sri Lankan government was not new and Satchithan-anthan otherwise failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in Sri Lanka to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(e); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-89 (“in order for evidence to be ‘material,’ ‘not available,’ and not able to have ‘been discovered or presented at the previous hearing,’ it must be ‘qualitatively different’ from the evidence presented at the previous hearing”) (internal citation omitted).

We reject Satchithananthan’s various contentions regarding the BIA’s review of her kreach 0f confidentiality claim under 8 C F R § 208 6

Finally, we deny as unnecessary Satchi-thananthan’s motion to supplement the opening brief.

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