Parmjeet Singh Kalkat 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).
LR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PARMJEET SINGH KALKAT,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71656
Agency No. A074-395-455
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Parmjeet Singh Kalkat, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LR/Research 07-71656 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090,
1095 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Kalkat’s motion
to reopen filed on November 25, 2003, because it was filed more than 90 days after
the BIA’s final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(c)(2), and Kalkat did not show
that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh, 491
F.3d at 1096-97.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --