Case Name: Roberto Antonio CHAVEZ-GRANADOS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-22
Citations: 319 F. App'x 482
Docket Number: No. 07-72264
Parties: Roberto Antonio CHAVEZ-GRANADOS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 319
Pages: 482–482

Head Matter:
Roberto Antonio CHAVEZ-GRANADOS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72264.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 22, 2009.
Shan D. Potts, Esq., Berke Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Roberto Antonio Chavez-Granados, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir.2007). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Chavez-Granados was not entitled to equitable tolling where he did not demonstrate that he exercised due diligence in discovering former counsels' alleged errors. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (equitable tolling available "when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.