
    Wibowo Muliawan KARFENDI; Juniar Tuti Simbolon, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71549.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 22, 2010.
    Serena Arfan Siew, Law Offices of James L. Rosenberg, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Wibowo Muliawan Karfendi, pro se.
    Serena Arfan Siew, Juniar Tuti Simbo-lon, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Larry P. Cote, Esquire, Michelle E. Gorden Latour, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wibowo Muliawan Karfendi and Juniar Tuti Simbolon, natives and citizens of Indonesia, 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, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition' for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where petitioners filed the motion more than three years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal), and failed to submit new and material evidence of changed country conditions in Indonesia that would excuse the late filing, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also Malty, 381 F.3d at 945 (requiring circumstances to have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution).

To the extent petitioners contend that the BIA failed to consider some or all of the evidence they submitted, they have not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2000).

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