
    Sophany KHOV, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75138.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 29, 2009.
    
    Filed Aug. 3, 2009.
    
      Judith Seeds Miller, Esq., Davis Miller & Neumeister, Van Nuys, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Jeffrey Leist, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sophany Khov, a native and citizen of Cambodia, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reissue and motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Khov’s motion to reopen for failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dee. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), where Khov failed to include evidence that she informed her representative of the allegations against him and the ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record. See Reyes, 358 F.3d at 597-99.

Khov also failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Cambodia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     