Malhi

MEMORANDUM **

Balwinder Singh Malhi, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review only the BIA’s denial of Malhi’s second motion to reopen, as he did not petition for review of the BIA’s denial of his first motion to reopen. Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. *727 1996). We deny the petition for review in part and dismiss it in part.

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc), we conclude that the BIA acted within its discretion in denying Malhi’s motion to reopen on the ground that he failed to comply with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 , 1988 WL 235454 (BIA 1988). To be timely filed, Malhi’s second motion to reopen must depend on the ineffectiveness of his second counsel. Yet, Malhi did not comply with the Lozada requirement to provide this prior counsel with notice and an opportunity to respond. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 599 (9th…