MEMORANDUM **
In these consolidated cases, Vahe and Karo Karapetyan, natives of the former Soviet Union and citizens of Armenia, peti*195tion for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motions to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motions to reopen as untimely where the motions were filed over four years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish changed circumstances in Armenia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in order to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions).
We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA did not adequately consider the issues raised in the motion. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.