Case Name: Kulwinder Jit Singh PARHAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-23
Citations: 479 F. App'x 79
Docket Number: No. 10-72326
Parties: Kulwinder Jit Singh PARHAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 79–79

Head Matter:
Kulwinder Jit Singh PARHAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72326.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 23, 2012.
Cornell Eugene Kirby, Law Office of Cornell Kirby, Shoreline, WA, for Petitioner.
Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial, Kristin A. Moresi, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel lee, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, 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
Kulwinder Jit Singh Parhar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen 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, 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 Parhar's motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed nearly five years after the final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Parhar failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.