Case Name: DUNG XUONG LAM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-30
Citations: 360 F. App'x 924
Docket Number: No. 06-72442
Parties: DUNG XUONG LAM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 924–925

Head Matter:
DUNG XUONG LAM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72442.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 30, 2009.
Marc Van Der Hout, Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Marion Guyton, Esquire, Trial, Allen Warren Hausman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dung Xuong Lam, a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Lam's motion to reopen as untimely because Lam filed the motion more than six years after the IJ's April 15,1999, removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b), and Lam failed to establish the due diligence required to warrant tolling of the motions deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or er ror, and exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances); cf. Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 998, 1000 (9th Cir.2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.