Ranjit Singh v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANJIT SINGH, Nos. 06-72513 & 06-74574
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-399-833
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 17, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA and BEA, Circuit Judges, and READE, Chief District Judge.**
Ranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his motion to reopen and motion
to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Court Judge for
the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
denial of both motions for abuse of discretion. Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d
968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004).
Given that the standard of review is abuse of discretion, the issue in this case
is whether the BIA had substantial evidence to conclude that Singh did not exercise
due diligence in seeking his motion to reopen. This court finds there was
substantial evidence in support of the BIA’s conclusion.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
because it was filed more than six years after the BIA’s October 20, 1999 dismissal
of his underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (stating that motion to reopen
generally must be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order), and Singh
failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling due to his lack of diligence. See
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that equitable tolling
is available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud,
or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the
deception, fraud, or error”). Singh did not exercise due diligence because he offers
no plausible explanation as to why he did not inquire about the status of the filing
of a petition for review for over five years after hiring his second attorney.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2