Case Name: Natha 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: 2011-03-24
Citations: 423 F. App'x 745
Docket Number: No. 09-71567
Parties: Natha SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 423
Pages: 745–746

Head Matter:
Natha SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71567.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 24, 2011.
Sanjay Chaubey, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Lyle Davis Jentzer, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, 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
Natha Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("U") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen because the Notice to Appear showed that it had been personally served on Singh and contained notice of his next scheduled hearing, see Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828 (9th Cir.2004) (notice proper where INS adhered to statutorily imposed procedural requirements), and because the motion was filed more than 10 years after the IJ's May 16, 1997, order and Singh failed to demonstrate grounds for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturri-barria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii).
In light of our disposition, we need not consider Singh's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.