Case Name: TAO LUAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-09
Citations: 205 F. App'x 576
Docket Number: No. 05-76608
Parties: TAO LUAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 205
Pages: 576–577

Head Matter:
TAO LUAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76608.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.
Filed Nov. 9, 2006.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Hillel Smith, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tao Luan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by refusing to apply equitable tolling to Luan's second motion to reopen because he failed to demonstrate that he acted with due diligence in pursuing the ineffective assistance of counsel claim against his pri- or attorney. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (equitable tolling applies where the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering previous counsel's deception, fraud or error).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen and reissue the March 5, 2005 decision in Luan's case. See Ekimian v. INS, 803 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.