22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T46d,MEMORANDUM Muli Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review. The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Zhang’s motion for failure to establish exceptional circumstances because Zhang did not satisfy the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the alleged ineffective assistance provided by his first attorney was not “obvious and undisputed on the face of the record.” Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-98 (9th Cir.2004); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(4)(iii)(A)(l). Zhang’s remaining contentions are not persuasive. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T49f,

MEMORANDUM

Muli Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Zhang’s motion for failure to establish exceptional circumstances because Zhang did not satisfy the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the alleged ineffective assistance provided by his first attorney was not “obvious and undisputed on the face of the record.” Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597-98 (9th Cir.2004); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(4)(iii)(A)(l).

Zhang’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.