Narendra Prasad v. Michael B. Mukasey

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NARENDRA PRASAD,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY,
Respondent.
No. 08-71664
Agency No. A078-652-077
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.
Narendra Prasad, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71664 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Prasad’s motion to reopen
because it was filed more than two years after the BIA’s May 12, 2005, order
dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Prasad failed to
demonstrate that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see
Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is
prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner
acts with due diligence”); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th
Cir. 2007).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Prasad’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --