Case Name: Kirpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-15
Citations: 225 F. App'x 511
Docket Number: No. 05-73154
Parties: Kirpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 511–512

Head Matter:
Kirpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73154.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007.
Filed March 15, 2007.
Martin Avila Robles, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, P.C. San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michael Jack Haney, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Dallas, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges!
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kirpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion, see Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than two years after the BIA's November 26, 2002 final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (stating that a motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of entry of a final administrative order of removal), and Singh did not show he was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (explaining that the deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled "when petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.