Anastasia Nkamine Siewe seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reopen immigration proceedings. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, we affirm for the following reasons:

1. Pursuant to immigration regulations, a filing fee is required in connection with the filing of a motion to reopen, unless the motion to reopen “is based exclusively on an application for relief [such as asylum] that *247 does not require a fee.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.24(b)(2)(i)(2005). Siewe’s motion to reopen is not based exclusively on an asylum application. Siewe’s original application for asylum was withdrawn and the proceeding below addressed only the merits of her 1-130 request for adjustment of status.

Siewe’s motion to reopen was based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. While that claim was related to advice Siewe received regarding asylum, Siewe’s motion to reopen did not address her eligibility for asylum, and she did not attach an asylum application to the motion. See id. at § 1003.23(b)(3) (a motion to reopen for the purpose of acting on an application for relief must be accompanied by the application and all supporting documents).

2. Because the basis of Siewe’s motion to reopen did not fall within the fee exemptions set out in § 1003.8, we agree with the BIA’s determination that a filing fee was required.

3. Because we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen for lack of a filing fee, we do not address Siewe’s argument that her motion met the requirements of In re Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 1988 WL 235454 (BIA 1988).

The petition for review is DENIED.