Case Name: Jaswan SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-14
Citations: 171 F. App'x 65
Docket Number: No. 04-74920
Parties: Jaswan SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 65–66

Head Matter:
Jaswan SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-74920.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Decided March 14, 2006.
Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Esq., Joseph J. Siguenza, Esq., Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jean M. Mohrbacher, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jaswan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Itumbarria v. INS, 821 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in declining to equitably toll the limitations period for filing a motion to reopen because the record does not demonstrate that Singh acted with due diligence in discovering his counsel was ineffective. See Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc); Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 898 (noting that due diligence is required to trigger equitable tolling).
Because Singh's motion to reopen was untimely, we do not consider his ineffective assistance of counsel claim or whether the withdrawal of his asylum application was voluntary.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.