
    CHAO YUNG ZHOU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71288.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 9, 2011.
    Joshua E. Bardavid, Esquire, Law Office of Joshua Bardavid, New York, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Benjamin Zeitlin, Trial 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: RYMER, IKUTA, 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

Chao Yung Zhou, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen exclusion proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhou’s motion to reopen exclusion proceedings held in absentia where Zhou failed to show reasonable cause for his failure to appear. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(B).

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhou’s motion to reopen to apply for asylum as untimely because he filed it more than fifteen years after the entry of his final exclusion order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and he failed to demonstrate changed country conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i); He, 501 F.3d at 1132-33 (change in personal circumstances alone is “not sufficient to establish changed circumstances in the country of origin within the regulatory exception”).

Zhou’s remaining contention is unavailing.

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