
    Francisco Paul ROSALES-URQUILLA, a.k.a. P. Francisco Roseales Urquillo, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70085.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2014.
    H. Nelson Meeks, Jr., Esquire, Law Office of H. Nelson Meeks, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Surell Brady, Esquire, Trial, OIL, 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: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Paul Rosales-Urquilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen deportation 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. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Rosales-Urquilla’s motion to take judicial notice of a receipt issued by USCIS showing that he filed a petition for a U-Visa is denied.

The BIA found Rosales-Urquilla’s motion to reopen was untimely because the motion was filed over thirteen years after the BIA’s final order and Rosales-Urquilla failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen. Rosales-Urquilla raises a contention regarding relief under the Convention Against Torture, but does not argue this issue is relevant to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen as untimely. Nor does Rosales-Urquilla otherwise challenge the BIA’s basis for denying his untimely motion to reopen. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996). Thus, we deny the petition for review.

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