Case Name: Eliza VARDUMYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-30
Citations: 305 F. App'x 475
Docket Number: No. 06-73516
Parties: Eliza VARDUMYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 305
Pages: 475–476

Head Matter:
Eliza VARDUMYAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73516.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Dec. 30, 2008.
Gittel Gordon, Law Offices of Gittel Gordon, La Jolla, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, John R. Cunningham, Esquire, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eliza Vardumyan, a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vardumyan's motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because Vardumyan failed to explain the eight-month delay between the entry of the BIA's previous order and her retention of current counsel, or otherwise establish grounds for equitable tolling. See id. at 897 (equitable tolling is available "when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error," as long as the petitioner acted with due diligence).
Vardumyan's remaining contentions are uhpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.