Chinese citizen Xiaolan Shi petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) order denying her motion to reopen. After careful review, we conclude the BIA acted within its discretion in denying Shi’s motion to reopen, *415 because the motion was filed more than thirteen months after the final removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final removal order), and because Shi had previously sought reopening, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) (alien may file one motion to reopen). See Habchy v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 858, 861 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). We also conclude the BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to waive the numerical and time limitations based on the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because Shi failed to comply with the Lozada 2 requirements. See id. at 863-64; Hernandez-Moran v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 496, 499 (8th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.