Case Name: Tirath SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-26
Citations: 401 F. App'x 216
Docket Number: No. 08-73448
Parties: Tirath SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 216–216

Head Matter:
Tirath SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73448.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 26, 2010.
Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Sada Manickam, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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
Tirath Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion because it was filed more than seven months after the BIA's November 2, 2007, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to demonstrate that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available "when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence"); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (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.