With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". his second motion to reopen removal proceedings in which Cruz De Leoz sought to apply for asylum, following the underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cruz De Leoz’s second motion to reopen as numerically barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), because Cruz De Leoz failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in the Philippines to qualify him for the regulatory exception to the numerical bar for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. ** This

A: holding that a change in personal circumstances is not sufficient to establish changed circumstances for the purpose of 8 cfr  10032c3h
B: holding that petitioners divorce was a purely personal change in circumstances that does not constitute changed conditions or circumstances in jordan
C: holding that an alien failed to qualify for the changed circumstances exception by asserting only that his personal circumstances had changed by the birth of a child
D: holding that a change in personal circumstances namely the birth of a child in the united states does not fit under the changed circumstances exception provided by 8 cfr  10032c3ii
A.