With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (“IJ”) order denying Woldemariam’s motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Woldemariam’s motion to reopen because Woldemariam failed to comply with all of the procedural guidelines set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597 (9th Cir.2004). Contrary to Woldemariam’s contention, the alleged ineffectiveness of the attorney who represented him before the immigration court is not plain from the record. Cf. Escobar-Grijalva v. INS, 206 F.3d 1331, 1335 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. ** This

A: holding that the bias reasonable rules for the normal ineffective assistance claim do not apply where facts demonstrating an attorneys ineffectiveness are not plain on the face of the administrative record
B: holding that failure to comply with the hozada requirements is not fatal where the alleged ineffective assistance is plain on the face of the administrative record
C: holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be raised on direct appeal when the facts supporting the claim are presented on the face of the record
D: holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record
A.