Case Name: Dilraj SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-27
Citations: 229 F. App'x 628
Docket Number: No. 04-76004
Parties: Dilraj SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 628–629

Head Matter:
Dilraj SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-76004.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 27, 2007.
Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Keith Bernstein, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dilraj Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, see Iturribarria v. INS, 821 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed almost two years after the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal), and Singh did not show he was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equitably 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.