¶2 Hardeep Singh Bhamra, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his third motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under -8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.
¶3 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bhamra’s third motion to reopen where it was filed over eight years after his order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Bhamra failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (evidence was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-90 (9th Cir.2010) (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject Bhamra’s contention that the BIA did not consider and assess the rele *460 vant evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA adequately considered the evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
¶4 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.