MEMORANDUM **

1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Batepola’s untimely motion to reopen. The BIA reasonably determined that Batepola was not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to pursue his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel against his two prior attorneys with due diligence, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-99 (9th Cir. 2003), and failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), see Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 2000). The BIA also reasonably determined that Batepola’s second attorney performed competently and that Batepola did not suffer prejudice as a result of following her advice.

2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Batepola failed to introduce new material evidence to support reopening based on changed country conditions. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992).

3. Batepola’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

PETITION DENIED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED.