Case Name: Gary Paul MATHARO, aka Gary Paul Singh Matharoo, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-13
Citations: 362 F. App'x 656
Docket Number: No. 07-71054
Parties: Gary Paul MATHARO, aka Gary Paul Singh Matharoo, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 656–657

Head Matter:
Gary Paul MATHARO, aka Gary Paul Singh Matharoo, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71054.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 13, 2010.
Manpreet Singh Gahra X, Law Office of Manpreet Singh Gahra, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Sada Manickam, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., 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
Gary Paul Matharo, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. 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 Matharo's motion because it was filed more than 6 years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Matharo failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir.2007) (requiring petitioner to act with due diligence to definitively learn of the ineffective assistance after he becomes suspicious of it).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.