Avtar Singh 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).
KY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AVTAR SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72360
Agency No. A077-424-839
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Avtar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective
assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
FEB 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KY/Research 06-72360 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo
questions of law, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Mohammed
v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Singh’s motion
to reopen 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 Singh did not show that he acted with the
due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090,
1096-97 (9th Cir. 2007).
Singh’s contention that an immigration consultant provided him with
ineffective assistance of counsel is foreclosed by Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1014, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that “knowing reliance upon the advice of a
non-attorney cannot support a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in a
removal proceeding.”).
Singh’s remaining contention is unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --