¶2 Satwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of *673 Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen exclusion proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Malty v. Ashcroft, 881 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004), we deny the petition for review.
¶3 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s May 4, 2005, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(2), and Singh failed to demonstrate materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty, 381 F.3d at 945 (“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.”).
¶4 Singh’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
¶5 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.