United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 15-1299
                         ___________________________

                               Angel Alex Cun-Luc

                             lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

                                           v.

             Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States

                            lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
                                    ____________

                       Petition for Review of an Order of the
                           Board of Immigration Appeals
                                   ____________

                           Submitted: February 16, 2016
                             Filed: February 25, 2016
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Guatemalan citizen Angel Alex Cun-Luc petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his second motion to reopen
proceedings. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion, see Martinez
v. Lynch, 

, 1264-65 (8th Cir. 2015) (reviewing for abuse of discretion
denial of motion to reopen); Averianova v. Holder, 

, 936 (8th Cir. 2010)
(reviewing BIA’s decision regarding changed country conditions under highly
deferential abuse of discretion standard). The BIA did not err in determining that
Cun-Luc’s second motion to reopen was untimely and number-barred. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i) (generally party may file one motion to reopen proceedings;
motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of date order of removal becomes
administratively final); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (same). While there is a changed-
country-conditions exception to the filing deadline and numerical limitation for
motions to reopen, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(7)(A), (C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(i)-(ii),
1003.23(b)(4)(i), we agree with the BIA that Cun-Luc failed to show he qualified for
the exception, see Zhong Qin Zheng v. Mukasey, 

, 895-96 (8th Cir.
2008) (discussing exception). The petition for review is denied.
                        ______________________________




                                          -2-