
    YIMEI WENG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73852.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 11, 2011.
    Bruno J. Bembi, Esquire, Hempstead, NY, for Petitioner.
    Carol Federighi, Esquire, Yamileth G. Handuber, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yimei Weng, a native and citizen of China, 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 denial of a motion to reopen, Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Weng’s second motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred, where the motion was filed nearly eleven years after the immigration judge’s December 6, 1996, order denying her first motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Weng failed to show changed circumstances in China in order to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Lin, 588 F.3d at 988-89 (record did not show material change in enforcement of family planning laws sufficient to establish changed country conditions and excuse an untimely motion to reopen).

Weng’s contention that on December 13, 1994, she was improperly ordered removed in absentia is belied by the record.

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