
    Paulino Luis MARTINEZ-MENA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72351.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 25, 2015.
    Marc Karlin, Karlin & Karlin, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Theodore Charles Hirt, OIL, 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: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paulino Luis Martinez-Mena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najma-badi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez-Mena’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed six years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Martinez-Mena failed to present material evidence of changed conditions in Mexico to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004).

Martinez-Mena’s contentions that the BIA failed to discuss the positive aspects of the evidence he submitted or adequately explain its decision are not supported. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (‘What is required is merely that [the BIA] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Martinez-Mena’s remaining contentions regarding whether he has demonstrated prima facie eligibility for relief. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (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.
     