MEMORANDUM **

Violeta Clotilde Arteta, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review for substantial evidence findings of fact regarding counsel’s performance, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Arteta’s motion to reopen because she did not establish that her former counsel “failed to perform with sufficient competence.” Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by it crediting Arteta’s former counsel’s statement that she informed Arteta about the BIA’s denial of her appeal over Arteta’s unsworn statement to the contrary. See INS v. Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 142-44, 101 S.Ct. 1027, 67 L.Ed.2d 123 (1981) (agency did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to reopen where it declined to credit unsworn allegations that were eonclusory and unbelievable); cf. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 989-90 (9th Cir. 2007) (agency abused discretion in denying motion to rescind in absentia removal order when it required sworn affidavit from pro se alien who presented plausible alle *680 gations); Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 2007) (agency required to accept as true the allegations in petitioner’s sworn affidavit where it did not find the allegations to be inherently unbelievable).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.