Case Name: Manikam REDDY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-24
Citations: 556 F. App'x 598
Docket Number: No. 09-72465
Parties: Manikam REDDY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 556
Pages: 598–598

Head Matter:
Manikam REDDY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72465.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
Filed Feb. 24, 2014.
Jaspreet Kalra Singh, Esquire, Jaspreet Singh, Portland, OR, Manmeet Toor, Sikh Alliance, Modesto, CA, Richard Beltran Curtis, Oakland, CA, Manikam Reddy, Hayward, CA, for Petitioner.
Timothy Hayes, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Manikam Reddy, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Reddy's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than three years after Reddy's removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Reddy failed to show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
Because the timeliness issue is disposi-tive, we need not reach Reddy's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.