Case Name: Manjinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-23
Citations: 233 F. App'x 672
Docket Number: No. 05-73425
Parties: Manjinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 233
Pages: 672–673

Head Matter:
Manjinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73425.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 16, 2007 .
Filed May 23, 2007.
Martin Avila Robles, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William C. Erb, Jr., Esq., Greg D. Mack, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Manjinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We review for an abuse of discretion, see Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004) amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than ninety days after the BIA's March 7, 2003 order, see 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh did not show he was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (explaining that the deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled "when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.