¶2 Baldev Singh, a native and citizen of India, 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 an abuse of discretion, Malty v. Ash *622 croft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.
¶3 The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over five years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial).
¶4 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.