Case Name: Jagdeep 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: 2010-04-12
Citations: 373 F. App'x 808
Docket Number: No. 07-74123
Parties: Jagdeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 808–809

Head Matter:
Jagdeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74123.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 12, 2010.
Martin Avila Robles, Immigration Practice Group, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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
Jagdeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his second motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than 90 days after the issuance of the BIA's February 9, 2007, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2, and Singh failed to establish his motion warranted tolling of the 90-day filing deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (equitable tolling is available to petitioner who is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or error, and exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.