Ranjeet 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RANJEET KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72398
Agency No. A079-245-428
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ranjeet Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen based on
ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
SEP 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

06-72398 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that equitable tolling was
unavailable for Kaur’s claims because she failed to demonstrate diligence where
she admitted to knowing that counsel was unprepared at the time of her hearing,
but continued to retain his services throughout the appellate process. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003) (tolling
available to individuals who are prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or
error, and use due diligence in discovering deception, fraud or error).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --