Case Name: Raghbir 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: 2009-03-04
Citations: 316 F. App'x 624
Docket Number: No. 06-73518
Parties: Raghbir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 316
Pages: 624–625

Head Matter:
Raghbir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73518.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed March 4, 2009.
Tsz-Hai Huang, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Raghbir 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 based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 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 acted within its discretion in denying Singh's motion as untimely because it was filed more than twenty months after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturribama, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling is available "when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.