Shrun Lata 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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHRUN LATA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-70784
Agency No. A042-687-739
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.
Shrun Lata, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
DEC 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 06-70784 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and de novo claims
of due process violations. Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2007).
We deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Lata’s motion to reopen as
untimely because it was filed more than two years after the BIA’s prior order, see
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Lata failed to demonstrate changed circumstances
arising in Fiji, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), or establish grounds for equitable
tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling
is available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud,
or error,” as long as the petitioner acted with due diligence).
Lata’s due process claim is unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --