Case ID: f-appx_381/html/0695-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Resham SINGH; Ranjit Singh Rana; Kamal Preet Kaur; Balbir Kaur, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71652.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 3, 2010.
    Teresa Salazar, Law Offices of Martin Resendez Guajardo, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kristin K. Edison, Esq., M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Resham Singh and his family, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s September 17, 2004, order dismissing petitioners’ appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish the late filing was due to deception, fraud or error of former counsel to warrant equitable tolling, see Iturribania, 321 F.3d at 897.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).

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