
    ZHIH HUA WU, aka John Doe, aka Zhi Hua Wu, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71879.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed March 3, 2016.
    Theodore N. Cox, Esquire, Law Offices of Theodore Cox, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. In-senga, Trial, DOJ-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: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Zhih Hua Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2007). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Wu’s third motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motion was filed over seventeen years late, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limits for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 988-89 (9th Cir.2009) (the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying an untimely motion to reopen where the record did not establish change in family planning laws or enforcement of such laws); He, 501 F.3d at 1132 (change in personal circumstances does not establish changed circumstances in country of origin). We reject Wu’s contentions that the BIA failed to fully consider evidence he submitted with his motion and that the BIA’s analysis was deficient. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010) (BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

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