The fact that Perez did not explicitly state that he was claiming ineffective assistance of counsel does not mean that he did not exhaust his remedies because the BIA was fully aware of Perez's contention that his lawyer knew of the deadline for Perez's § 212(c) waiver and yet failed to file the waiver. See Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879, 882 (2d Cir. 1994). The government also argues that Perez did not exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not appeal the BIA's decision affirming the denial of the motion to reopen and to stay deportation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show that competent counsel would have acted otherwise and that she was prejudiced by her counsel's performance. See Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879, 882 (2d Cir. 1994); Esposito v. INS, 987 F.2d 108, 111 (2d Cir. 1993) (per curiam). As discussed below, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Huang failed to show she was prejudiced by her counsel's performance.

DISCUSSION On appeal, Zheng contends that, under Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879 (2d Cir. 1994), the BIA's decision denying her motion to reopen is not entitled to deference. Specifically, Zheng maintains that the BIA does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate ineffective assistance of counsel claims, see id. at 882, and, accordingly, that compliance with the BIA's ruling in Lozada cannot be required.

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must comply with the procedural requirements set out in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. &N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1998), and show both that a "competent counsel would have acted" differently from her prior counsel and that the movant "was prejudiced by h[er] counsel's [deficient] performance." See Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879, 882 (2d Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). To establish prejudice, a movant must "make a prima facie showing that [s]he would have been eligible for the relief" at issue.

The BIA did not err in declining to excuse the time or number limits based on Sarkar's claim that his former attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to petition for review of the agency's underlying decision, which denied asylum and related relief on credibility grounds because Sarkar failed to show prejudice. See Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879, 882-83 (2d Cir. 1994) . "To demonstrate prejudice, [a petitioner] ha[s] to make a prima facie showing that, but for counsel's ineffectiveness, 'he would have been eligible for [asylum] relief,' and 'could have made a strong showing in support of his application.'"

In order to warrant equitable tolling, even assuming that a movant demonstrated that his prior counsel's actions were ineffective, the movant must show that those actions caused actual prejudice, i.e., McCarthy had to "make a prima facie showing that he would have been eligible for the relief and that he could have made a strong showing in support of his application." Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879, 882 (2d Cir. 1994). The BIA did not err in concluding that McCarthy failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his former counsel's assistance because he did not produce evidence that Jamaican officials would acquiesce in his torture as required to establish his prima facie eligibility for deferral of removal under the CAT.

In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show that competent counsel would have acted otherwise, and that the alien was prejudiced by his counsel's performance. Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879, 882-83 (2d Cir. 1994); Esposito v. INS, 987 F.2d 108, 111 (2d Cir. 1993). Singh failed to satisfy either prong.

In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show that competent counsel would have acted otherwise, and that she was prejudiced by counsel's performance. Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879, 882-83 (2d Cir. 1994); Esposito v. INS, 987 F.2d 108, 111 (2d Cir. 1993). To demonstrate prejudice, or otherwise succeed on a motion to reopen, a movant must establish a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought.

A movant claiming ineffective assistance of former counsel must show that competent counsel would have acted otherwise, and that the alien was prejudiced by his counsel's performance. See Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879, 882-83 (2d Cir. 1994); Esposito v. INS, 987 F.2d 108, 111 (2d Cir. 1993). In order to show actual prejudice resulted from counsel's failure to pursue certain initiatives, the movant "must make a prima facie showing that he would have been eligible for the relief and that he could have made a strong showing in support of his application."

To prevail on such a claim, an alien must demonstrate, inter alia, that the alleged ineffective assistance prejudiced the outcome of his case. Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879, 882-83 (2d Cir. 1994) ("In order for [the petitioner] to show that his attorney's failure . . . caused him actual prejudice, he must make a prima facie showing that he would have been eligible for the relief and that he could have made a strong showing in support of his application."); see also Esposito v. INS, 987 F.2d 108, 111 (2d Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Wu's ineffective assistance of counsel claim because Wu failed to demonstrate that his counsel's allegedly ineffective assistance prejudiced the outcome of his proceedings.