
    Maria Del Socorro ZERTUCHE-MORENO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72101
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 16, 2017  San Francisco, California
    Filed May 22, 2017
    Ian Silverberg, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Ian Silverberg, Reno, NV, for Petitioner
    Kathryn McKinney, Corey Leigh Farrell, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and HUCK, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
      
         The Honorable Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Maria Del Socorro Zertuche-Moreno (“Zertuche-Moreno”) petitions for review of a June 13', 2014 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) and review for an abuse of discretion. Shouchen Yang v. Lynch, 822 F.3d 504, 508 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny Zertuche-Moreno’s petition for review.

Zertuche-Moreno argues that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard and failed to recognize that she presented sufficient evidence to qualify for the changed country conditions exception described in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h). We disagree, and conclude that the BIA properly denied Zertuche-Moreno’s motion because she failed to present sufficient evidence to show “changed country conditions” in Mexico and failed to show that the proffered evidence “was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).

Several of the exhibits attached to Zer-tuche-Moreno’s motion were published before her hearing and were therefore “available” at that time. Id. The remaining exhibits fail to demonstrate a material change in country conditions because, although they include “troubling accounts of violence and kidnaping in Mexico,” Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016), they do not show that “circumstances have changed sufficiently [so that Zertuche-Moreno] now has a well-founded fear of future persecution,” Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004). The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Zertuche-Moreno’s motion to reopen.

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