MEMORANDUM **

*516In these consolidated petitions, Kulwin-der Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel (05-70400), and its subsequent order denying her motion to reconsider (05-73897). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.

In No. 05-70400, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Kaur’s motion to reopen exceeded the numerical limitations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a party may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings).

In No. 05-73897, although the BIA should have construed Kaur’s motion as a motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, see Ray v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 582, 585 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2006) (claims of ineffective assistance require the introduction of new facts, and are properly raised in a motion to reopen, not a motion to reconsider), the error is immaterial because the BIA correctly determined that Kaur failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988). See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 824 (9th Cir. 2003) (for the BIA to grant a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioner must: (1) provide an affidavit describing agreement with counsel in detail; (2) inform counsel of the allegations and afford counsel an opportunity to respond; and (3) report whether a complaint of ethical or legal violations has been filed with the proper authorities and if not, why not).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.