
    Ruben Basa CHING, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72612.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 14, 2015.
    Ruben Basa Ching, Suisun City, CA, pro se.
    Nicole Prairie, Oil, 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: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ruben Basa Ching, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions 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 denial of the motion to reopen. Toufi-ghi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Though the BIA was mistaken when it found that Ching did not file an asylum application with his motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ching’s motion where it separately found the motion untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and found Ching failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in the Philippines to qualify for a regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (stating the hurdles' a petitioner must clear in order to prevail on a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions). We reject Ching’s contention that the time limitation on motions to reopen does not apply to his motion.

We do not reach any challenges Ching raises to the agency’s underlying credibility finding because they were addressed by this court in Ching v. Holder, 514 Fed.Appx. 678 (9th Cir.2013).

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