Case Name: QIANG WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-01
Citations: 402 F. App'x 242
Docket Number: No. 08-74300
Parties: QIANG WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 242–243

Head Matter:
QIANG WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74300.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Nov. 1, 2010.
Barbara-Ann Williams, Esquire, Law Offices of Barbara-Ann Williams, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Paul Fiorino, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, 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
Qiang Wang, a native and citizen of China, 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 by denying Wang's motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than three years after the BIA's December 1, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Wang failed to demonstrate that he acted with the due diligence required to warrant equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Wang's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.