Case Name: Grigor GASPARYAN; Katerina Malatchyan, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-26
Citations: 271 F. App'x 687
Docket Number: No. 06-75704
Parties: Grigor GASPARYAN; Katerina Malatchyan, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 687–688

Head Matter:
Grigor GASPARYAN; Katerina Malatchyan, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75704.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 26, 2008.
Robert B. Jobe, Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Matt Crapo, Washington, DC, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel De partment of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Ch'cuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Grigor Gasparyan and Katerina Malatchyan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely and refused to apply equitable tolling, because petitioners did not present any evidence to indicate that they acted with due diligence once they became suspicious of their counsel's deficient representation. See Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2007) (equitable tolling requires evidence of prompt actions taken to discover counsel's deficient representation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.