reopen as untimely. See id. The BIA properly noted that it previously issued the final removal order in February 2004, and Chen did not file her motion to reopen until March 2007, well beyond the 90-day filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R § 1003.2(c)(2). To the extent Chen argues that the family planning policy will now apply to her in a manner in which it did not apply before she gave birth to two children in the United States, and that such a difference amounts to a change in country conditions, her argument is without merit. Merely reframing her change in personal circumstances as a change in country conditions in China does not bring Chen’s motion within the exceptions to the time limitation on motions to reopen. See Li Yong Zheng v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F.3d 129,130-31 (2d Cir.2005)(<HOLDING>). Even if Chen’s motion to reopen were subject
holding that a change in personal circumstances is not sufficient to establish changed circumstances for the purpose of 8 cfr  10032c3h holding that the state department country report constituted substantial evidence to support the agencys finding of changed country conditions in guatemala 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 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 holding that in evaluating evidence of changed country conditions the bia compares the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below