MEMORANDUM **

Zinaida Ivanovna Lipsyuk, a native and citizen of Moldova, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lipsyuk’s motion to reopen because Lipsyuk did not demonstrate pri-ma facie eligibility for adjustment of status *8 as the battered spouse of a United States citizen. See id. at 994.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in also denying Lipsyuk’s motion to reopen because the motion failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004) (the failure to comply with Lozada is significant where the facts underlying petitioner’s claim are not plain on the face of the record).

We do not consider the July 29, 2009, Notice of Action regarding Lipsyuk’s I-360 petition because our review is limited to the administrative record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.