Case Name: XIAOLAN SHI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-16
Citations: 326 F. App'x 414
Docket Number: No. 08-1841
Parties: XIAOLAN SHI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 414–415

Head Matter:
XIAOLAN SHI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 08-1841.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 11, 2009.
Filed: June 16, 2009.
Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
. Eric H. Holder, Jr., has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Chinese citizen Xiaolan Shi petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA's) order denying her motion to reopen. After careful review, we conclude the BIA acted within its discretion in denying Shi's motion to reopen, because the motion was filed more than thirteen months after the final removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final removal order), and because Shi had previously sought reopening, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) (alien may file one motion to reopen). See Habchy v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 858, 861 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review). We also conclude the BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to waive the numerical and time limitations based on the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because Shi failed to comply with the Lozada requirements. See id. at 863-64; Hernandez-Moran v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 496, 499 (8th Cir.2005).
Accordingly, we deny the petition.
. Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988) (petitioner must submit affidavit attesting to relevant facts; must inform counsel of allegations and allow response; and must state whether complaint has been filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities, and if not, why not).