Case Name: Ernesto ROJAS MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-15
Citations: 173 F. App'x 607
Docket Number: No. 04-73179
Parties: Ernesto ROJAS MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 173
Pages: 607–607

Head Matter:
Ernesto ROJAS MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-73179.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Decided March 15, 2006.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ernesto Rojas Miranda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his second motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's 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 BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rojas Miranda's second motion to reopen as time- and number-barred under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), because Rojas Miranda failed to explain why he did not discover the alleged ineffective assistance of his former counsel or how he was prevented from raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim during the five years that elapsed between the time when he retained new counsel and the time he filed his second motion to reopen. See id. at 897 (requiring petitioner to show due diligence to obtain equitable tolling of time and number limits).
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.