Filip Baranski, a native and citizen of Poland, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motions to reopen and reconsider, and denying his second motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Baranski fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA’s determination that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his motions to reopen and reconsider. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).

Construing Baranski’s appeal as a second motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because Baranski failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance was not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.