NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________ No. 19

- 2 722

____________ SONIA ARACELY MORALES

- SICAN , Petitioner
v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

____________ On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(B IA -1: A098 113 572) Immigratio n Judge: Esmeralda Cabrera

____________ Submitted on March 3, 2020 Before: SMITH, C hief Judge , HARDIMA N, a nd KRAUSE, Circuit Judges
. (Filed: March 26, 2020)

____________ OPINION *

____________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge
. Sonia Aracely Morales

- Sican petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reopen
. A citizen of Guatemala, Morales

Sican entered the United States without admission or inspection in 2004. That year, t he Department of Homeland Security ch arged her as removable and issued her a notice to appear. S he failed to appear, and the immigration judge (IJ) entered a removal order in absentia on February 24, 2005
. In 2014, Morales

- Sican moved to reopen, claiming she did not provide the address to which the government sent the notice to appear. The IJ denied her motion . After the IJ denied reconsideration in pertinent part, the BIA affirmed. Morales

- Sican filed a second motion to reopen in August 2 018 seeking asylum based on changed country conditions in Guatemala. Finding that Morales

- Sican failed to show changed country conditions , the BIA denied her petition as time

- and number

- barred
. Morales

- Sican petitions this Court for review and we have jur isdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See, e.g. , Filja v. Gonzales , 447 F.3d 241, 251 (3d Cir. 2006). Generally, a n alien may file one motion to reopen , and must do so “within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i). If an alien seeks re s cission of a removal order entered in absentia and can show “exceptional circumstances,” the time bar is3

extended to 180 days. Id. § 1229 a(b)(5)(C)(i). But t hese filing limitations do not apply when the alien applies for asylum based on changed country conditions. See id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) ; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). The IJ entered the final order of removal in Morales

- Sican’ s case on February 24, 2005. She previously moved to reopen in 2014. So her 2018 motion to reopen is time

and number

- barred, unless she can show the BIA abused its discretion in concluding she failed to show changed country conditions. O n appeal, Morales

- Sican’s attorney does not address this issue
. He instead declares that “this matter should be remanded to the BIA for further consideration of” the Attorney General’s decision in In re L

- E

- A

- , 27 I
. & N
. Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019), a case that has nothin g to do with changed country conditions
. Opening Br. 10. Because Morales

- Sican has forfeited any challenge to the BIA’s conclusion that she failed to show changed country conditions, s ee , e.g. , Khan v. Att’y Gen. , 691 F.3d 488, 495 n.4 (3d Cir. 2012), and b ecause her attorney has not presented any other basis on which to find an abuse of discretion , w e must deny her petition for review
.