SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Petitioner Siyka Kostadinova (“Kostadinova”), a citizen of Bulgaria proceeding pro se, has filed a timely petition for review of a June 24, 2003 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA decision affirmed the April 2002 decision of an Immigration Judge (“U”) denying Kostadinova’s application for political asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3).1 We assume that the parties are familiar with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented in the petition for review.
Kostadinova argues on appeal that the Attorney General improperly and without notice converted the immigration judge’s grant of voluntary departure into an order of deportation. The governing statute expressly provides for the expiration of orders of voluntary departure and *527civil penalties for failure to depart. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(2), (d). In the BIA’s June 24, 2003 order, the agency notified Kostadinova of the consequences of failing to depart within the specified period. The order stated: “If the alien fails to depart the United States within the time period specified, or any extensions granted by the district director, the alien shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000, and shall be ineligible for a period of 10 years for any further relief under section 240B and sections 240A, 245, 248, and 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.” Kostadinova was thus explicitly informed of the consequences of her decision not to depart before the expiration of the order. Her appeal on this issue is therefore denied.
Kostadinova also argues that her counsel was ineffective in failing to file her asylum application in a timely manner, and in failing to explain to either the IJ or the BIA, where he again represented Kostadinova, that the petition was filed beyond the one year limit due to his negligence. The IJ granted the Government’s motion to pretermit Kostadinova’s asylum application and stated that the merits of her claim “will be reviewed in the context of an application for withholding of removal only,” noting that such an application “has a higher burden of proof.” On a number of occasions, the IJ also cited the tardiness of Kostadinova’s asylum application in her analysis of the merits of Kostadinova’s removal claim, stating among other things that it contributed to “the inherent improbability of the respondent’s story.”
Ineffective assistance of counsel can constitute an “extraordinary circumstance” that permits the Attorney General to excuse an alien for failing to meet the one year filing requirement. 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5)(iii).2 Although Kostadinova offers some supporting evidence with her petition,3 she did not raise this claim with the BIA, for example, through a timely filed petition to reopen, and we therefore decline to address it here. See Arango-Aradondo v. INS, 13 F.3d 610, 614 (2d Cir.1994). We take no position on whether, in light of Kostadinova’s timely petition to this Court, the BIA should, in the event Kostadinova now files a motion to reopen with the BIA, in its discretion waive the requirement that motions to reopen shall be filed within ninety days of the final administrative order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i).
We have considered all of Kostadinova’s remaining claims, and find them to be *528without merit. The petition for review is therefore DENIED.