FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURINDER SINGH, No. 08-71417
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-248-076
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Gurinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to
rescind his in absentia removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion as
number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii), and Singh failed to demonstrate
that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, 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”).
Singh’s contention that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) is unconstitutional is
unavailing.
To the extent Singh challenges the immigration judge’s June 11, 1998,
decision, we lack jurisdiction because Singh did not appeal from that decision to
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Singh’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-71417