Case Name: Rajinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-01
Citations: 195 F. App'x 675
Docket Number: No. 04-74679
Parties: Rajinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 675–676

Head Matter:
Rajinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-74679.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided Aug. 1, 2006.
Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Law Offices of Martin Resendez Guajardo A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Kristin A Cabral, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rajinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen for ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and deny the petition for review.
A motion to reopen before the BIA must be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (noting exceptions not relevant here). This deadline may be equitably tolled "during periods when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence." Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003). Singh filed his motion to reopen more than one year after the BIA's decision and more than five years after the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel took place. Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen as untimely because he did not act with due diligence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.