SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner, Zhi Xin He (“He”), a native and citizen of China, appeals the decision of the BIA dismissing his appeal and denying his request for a remand to the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). We assume familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.
The IJ’s finding of a lack of credibility is supported by substantial evidence. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in failing to remand for consideration of new evidence, both because the evidence was not new, and because on its merits, the evidence did not significantly undermine the IJ’s finding of a lack of credibility.
Before this Court, petitioner seeks for the first time to raise a claim under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. Surprisingly, the government does not argue that He’s failure to present this claim to the BIA precludes him from raising it here. But, in any event, the claim fails on its merits because the record does not show more probably that not that petitioner will be subject to torture if returned to China. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 184 (2d Cir.2004); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).
Finally, petitioner argues that his case should be remanded because he was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel in the proceeding before the IJ. Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A.1988), sets out a series of requirements for filing a motion to reopen with the BIA on the ground of inadequacy of counsel. See Jian Yun Zheng v. Ashcroft, 409 F.3d 43, 45-48 (2d Cir.2005) (finding these requirements to be valid). Petitioner did not allege ineffective assistance before the BIA, much less comply with the dictates of Lozada. While it may still be possible for petitioner to seek reopening before the BIA based on past counsel’s behavior, the question of inadequacy of counsel is not before us at this time.1
*426We have considered all of He’s claims and find them to be without merit. The petition for review is therefore DENIED, and the outstanding motion for stay of deportation is DENIED.