Case Name: Davinder PAUL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-15
Citations: 225 F. App'x 506
Docket Number: No. 05-71862
Parties: Davinder PAUL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 506–507

Head Matter:
Davinder PAUL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71862.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007 .
Filed March 15, 2007.
Helen A. Sklar, Esq., Kari E. Hong, Law Office of Helen Sklar, Esq., Los An-geles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Alison Marie Igoe, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Davinder Paul, a citizen and native of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying a motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) and review the denial of motions to reopen for an abuse of discretion. See Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 857 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Paul's motion to reopen for ineffective assistance of counsel as untimely and in refusing to apply equitable tolling to the time limit. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 898 (9th Cir.2003) (time for filing a motion to reopen may be equitable tolled when petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.