
    Muhammad PARVEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70596.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 16, 2014.
    Alan Mark Kaufman, Esquire, Kaufman & Kaufman, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, John M. Mc-adams, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Muhammad Parvez, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Parvez’s motion to reopen because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1008.2(c)(2), and Parvez failed to establish materially changed circumstances in Pakistan to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1008.2(c)(3); see also He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir.2007) (The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying motion where petitioners “provided insufficient support to establish changed circumstances”); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (setting forth requirements for prevailing on a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions). Contrary to Parvez’s contentions, the BIA did not otherwise abuse its discretion in denying his motion. See Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 992 (“This Court defers to the Board’s exercise of discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally or contrary to law.”).

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