FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVINDER SINGH, No. 09-70362
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-642-168
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Davinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
proceedings due to ineffective assistance of counsel. 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, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
where the motion was filed more than six years after the BIA’s final order of
removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to show he acted with the
due diligence required to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897. In light of our holding, we need not address Singh’s
contentions concerning the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s challenge to the BIA’s underlying
order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision, because this
petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186,
1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-70362