Case Name: Bijai CHAND, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-16
Citations: 498 F. App'x 686
Docket Number: No. 11-72791
Parties: Bijai CHAND, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Court Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 498
Pages: 686–686

Head Matter:
Bijai CHAND, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72791.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
Filed Nov. 16, 2012.
Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director Yedidya Cohen, Trial DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Court Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bijai Chand, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. 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). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chand's motion to reopen as untimely where he filed the motion more than six years after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final order), and failed allege ineffective assistance against his third attorney who represented him between July 2009 and November 2010, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679-80 (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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.