Case ID: f-appx_338/html/0704-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gurmukh SINGH KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72108.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 14, 2009.
    
    Filed July 24, 2009.
    Christopher John Stender, Stender & Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Jem C. Spon-zo, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gurmukh Singh Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh Kaur’s second motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred where Singh Kaur filed the motion almost four years after the BIA’s April 9, 2003, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh Kaur did not establish that he was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (equitable tolling is available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error”); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 993.

Singh Kaur’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

Ail other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.