Case Name: Shrun LATA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-30
Citations: 360 F. App'x 931
Docket Number: No. 06-70784
Parties: Shrun LATA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 931–932

Head Matter:
Shrun LATA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70784.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 30, 2009.
Tsz-Hai Huang Fax, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Justin M. Dempsey, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Counterterrorism Section/NSD, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Shrun Lata, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and de novo claims of due process violations. Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.2007). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Lata's motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than two years after the BIA's prior order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Lata failed to demonstrate changed circumstances arising in Fiji, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), or establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (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).
Lata's due process claim is unavailing.
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.