Gary Paul Matharo, aka Gary Paul Singh Matharoo v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
KS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARY PAUL MATHARO, aka Gary Paul
Singh Matharoo,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71054
Agency No. A072-142-314
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
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.
FILED
JAN 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KS/Research 07-71054 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --