With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir.2001) (internal citations omitted). Although the BIA abused its discretion when it determined that Zheng’s motion to reopen was untimely filed, Zheng has waived that claim. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1 (2d Cir. 2005). Manifest injustice would not result if we refuse to consider this claim because Zheng has filed three motions to reopen and the BIA properly determined that Zheng’s motion does not fall within one of the exceptions to the timeliness and numerical limitation requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). This Court has already held that a change in an individual’s personal circumstances does not qualify under the country conditions exception. Li Yong Zheng v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F.3d 129, 130-31 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Jian Huan Guan v. BIA, 345 F.3d 47, 49 (2d

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 8 cfr  10032c3ii applies to changed country conditions in the country of origin or deportation and not changed personal circumstances in the united states
D: 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.