
    Teresa Figueroa OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73707.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 13, 2010.
    
      Teresa Figueroa Ocampo, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Timothy Bo Stanton, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. 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

Teresa Figueroa Ocampo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se 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 denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred because it was her second motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the second motion was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Petitioner presented insufficient evidence to qualify for the changed country conditions exception. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (“The critical question is ... whether circumstances 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.”).

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioner’s contention that she and her children belong to a particular social group because she failed to exhaust that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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