With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". prior counsel was filed with the proper disciplinary authorities or explain why no such complaint was filed.” Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 900. Here, it is undisputed that petitioner failed to comply with the Matter of Lozada requirements. Further, counsel’s alleged ineffective performance is not clear from the record. In fact, at the end of the asylum hearing, the Immigration Judge commented that petitioner’s attorney had done an “excellent” job. Most importantly, petitioner has not demonstrated that the outcome of his case would have been any different had counsel informed him of the BIA’s decision in a timely manner. Accordingly, petitioner has failed to show prejudice from counsel’s alleged ineffective representation. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 825-26 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 899-900 (in order

A: holding waiver ineffective but finding no need to remand and affirming denial of section 2255 motion when defendant did not specify any basis for claim of ineffective assistance
B: holding in context of sixth amendment ineffective assistance of counsel based on asserted failure of counsel to file appeal established prejudice per se for purpose of establishing habeas review jurisdiction as if proven such failure constitutes denial of a fundamental constitutional right
C: holding on appeal from a habeas corpus denial that counsel was not ineffective for failure to file a notice of appeal because of defendants escape
D: holding that failure to file brief on appeal to bia constitutes ineffective assistance but affirming the denial of habeas because petitioner could not show prejudice
D.