Jagdeep 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAGDEEP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74123
Agency No. A078-656-346
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jagdeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
APR 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74123 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773
(9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely because the motion was filed more than 90 days after the issuance of the
BIA’s February 9, 2007, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2, and Singh failed to establish
his motion warranted tolling of the 90-day filing deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS,
321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling is available to petitioner who is
prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or error, and exercises due diligence
in discovering such circumstances).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --