Case Name: Ajeshni Lata SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric C. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-29
Citations: 488 F. App'x 240
Docket Number: No. 08-71289
Parties: Ajeshni Lata SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric C. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FISHER, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 488
Pages: 240–241

Head Matter:
Ajeshni Lata SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric C. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71289.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2012.
Filed Oct. 29, 2012.
Judith Lott, Esquire, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
Kevin James Conway, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, 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
Ajeshni Lata Singh petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen. Because the motion to reopen was untimely and the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Singh was not entitled to equitable tolling, we deny the petition.
Singh does not warrant equitable tolling because she was not diligent in discovering or addressing the alleged ineffective assistance of her former counsel. She was notified twice that her lawyer had been suspended from practicing law before the BIA, but she elected to continue relying on him. See Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir.2011) (due diligence required); Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir.2007) (holding where an alien has reason to be suspicious of the quality of her counsel's representation and does not investigate, she has not acted with due diligence).
Even if Singh's motion to reopen were timely, she failed to show that she had been prejudiced by her attorney's alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, her motion to reopen is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.