
    Olvyke Chanette LANGIE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71283.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2015.
    Robert G. Berke, Esquire, Berke Law Offices, Canoga Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    Stuart Nickum, Oil, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

OIvyke Chanette Langie, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, and we review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We review the BIA’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. Id. We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Langie’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Langie failed to establish changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for an exception to the time limitations for a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

Finally, we reject Langie’s contention that the BIA’s bases for denial were unclear, or that it applied an incorrect legal standard, and/or inadequately reviewed the evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision). Thus, we need not address Langie’s remaining challenges to the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen.

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