Shukla

concurring.

Because Shukla expressly declined in his petition for review to make an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, I would not decide that issue here. Moreover, I do not agree with the last paragraph of the disposition.

I would hold that there is no showing that the withdrawal of the plea was invol *656 untary or that Shukla and his counsel did not knowingly withdraw it.

MEMORANDUM **

Brinder Kumar Shukla, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reinstate his appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b), and we deny the petition.

Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we do not recount it here except as necessary to explain our disposition. Shukla argues that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reinstate his appeal because he “lacked prior notice as to why the prior attorneys called him into the office” to sign the motion to withdraw and “the motion to withdraw appeal [did] not contain any wording indicated (sic) that Mr. Shukla was advised of his right to appeal or his right to proceed with new counsel or pro se.” The BIA has suggested that a motion to reinstate an appeal is tantamount to a motion to reopen. See In re Alba Luz Gutierrez-Lopez, Interim Decision 3286, 1996 WL 413581 (BIA 1996). Therefore, we will consider Shukla’s motion to reinstate his appeal as a motion to reopen. Shukla argues that his previous attorney failed to advise him of his continued right to appeal and…