MEMORANDUM **

1. Petitioner Reena Raut argues that the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) improperly relied on the asylum officer’s notes in their adverse credibility determinations. The officer took detailed notes and testified about the procedures he used to ensure that Raut understood his questions and that he accurately recorded the interview. The BIA reasonably concluded that the officer “was a reliable impeachment source.” Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 2004). Raut made inconsistent statements about her persecution. Her varied explanations were not persuasive. Thus, the agency’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence.

2. A petitioner must satisfy the Lozada elements to make an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1089-90 (9th Cir. 2010); Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). Strict compliance with Lozada is not required when counsel’s ineffectiveness is plain on the face of the record. Tamang, 598 F.3d at 1090. Raut argues that her counsel erred by not laying a foundation for her supporting documents. *554 But Raut’s counsel did ask some foundational questions, and all documents were admitted for the IJ’s consideration. Thus, there was no plain error warranting a waiver of Lozada’s procedural requirements.

DENIED.