SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Naoufal Alaoui Moustain, a native and citizen of Morocco, seeks review of a December 14, 2012, decision of the BIA affirming a December 13, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Horn denying his motion to reopen. In re Naoufal Alaoui Moustain, No. A097 535 718 (B.I.A. Dec. 14, 2012), aff'g No. A097 535 718 (Immig.Ct.N.Y.C. Dec. 13, 2010). We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mulcasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (quoting Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006)). We review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Moustain first argues that the BIA erred in not transcribing two prior hearings and requests that his case be remanded for transcription. Additionally, Mous-tain contends that his counsel during his 2007 deportation proceeding was ineffective because he did not raise the issue of Moustain’s incompetence at that time. However, as the government notes, Mous-tain failed to raise either of these claims before the agency. Because these claims are unexhausted, we decline to consider them here. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-20, 124 (2d Cir. 2007); Garcia-Martinez v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 511, 513 (2d Cir. 2006).

With respect to the issues properly before the Court, we find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Moustain’s motion to reopen was both untimely and numerically barred. An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). Here, Moustain’s June 2010 motion was his second motion to reopen and was filed more than two years after the IJ’s December 2007 final order of removal, making it both untimely and number-barred. 1 In any case, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Moustain’s motion to reopen on the merits, as the BIA was entitled to conclude from the record before it that Moustain failed to establish that his depression affected the outcome of the December 2007 proceedings.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.