
    Mudiaga Obijuru URIE, aka Troy Urie, aka Troy Mudiaga Urie, aka Mydiaga Urig, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General Respondent.
    No. 14-71039
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    August 2, 2016
    Mudiaga Obijuru Urie, Medford, OR, Pro Se.
    Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA, for Attorney General Respondent.
    
      Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mudiaga Obijuru Urie, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se 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 abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Urie’s motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed over six years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1008.2(c)(2), and Urie failed to demonstrate material changed circumstances in Nigeria to qualify for a regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991-92 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject Urie’s contentions that the BIA failed to adequately review the evidence and improperly considered the 2005 country report. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

We grant respondent’s motion for leave to file a late opposition to Urie’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 29). We deny Urie’s opposed motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 27). See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc); cf. Gafoor v. INS, 231 F.3d 645, 655-56 (9th Cir. 2000) (the court may take judicial notice of dramatic events and will remand to the agency for consideration).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     