
    Pavel SHVETSOV; Julia Sosnovskaya, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70541.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 16, 2013.
    Alexander J. Segal, The Law Office of Grinberg & Segal, PLLC, New York, NY, for Petitioners.
    David Nicholas Harling, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pavel Shvetsov and Julia Sosnovskaya, natives and citizens of Russia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo claims of due process violations. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely, where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Russia 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); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed).

We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA violated their due process rights by failing to provide a reasoned basis for its conclusions. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a due process violation). Further, we decline to consider any chal-

lenge to the agency’s adverse credibility finding because this court already decided the issue in Shvetsov v. Holder, 324 Fed.Appx. 678 (9th Cir.2009).

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