Petrosyan

MEMORANDUM ***

Ashot Petrosyan, Elmira Shaninyan, and Aslan Petrosyan (collectively, the Petitioners), all natives and citizens of Armenia, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of deportation, and protection under the Con *652 vention Against Torture. 1 We dismiss the petition.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Due process challenges to immigration decisions are reviewed de novo. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004). To prevail on the due process claim, a petitioner must show that the proceeding was “so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case” and must also show prejudice. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000).

This court lacks jurisdiction to hear a challenge alleging ineffective assistance of counsel where the claim has not been exhausted before the BIA. Barron , F.3d at 677-678. To present a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must file a motion to reopen with the BIA and demonstrate, at least, substantial compliance with the Lozada requirements. 2 See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d…