Harpreet Kaur 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARPREET KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71539
Agency No. A075-253-935
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Harpreet Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
SEP 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-71539 2
denial of a motion to reopen, Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.
2011), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur’s motion to reopen as
untimely where it was filed nine years after her final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and she failed to establish that she qualified for equitable tolling of
the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679-80 (equitable tolling is available
to a petitioner who establishes that he suffered from deception, fraud or error, and
exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --