Ajeshni Lata Singh v. ERIC C. 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
AJESHNI LATA SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC C. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71289
Agency No. A095-398-289
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2012 **
San Francisco, California
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ajeshni Lata Singh petitions for review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen. Because the motion to
reopen was untimely and the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
Singh was not entitled to equitable tolling, we deny the petition.
FILED
OCT 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Singh does not warrant equitable tolling because she was not diligent in
discovering or addressing the alleged ineffective assistance of her former counsel.
She was notified twice that her lawyer had been suspended from practicing law
before the BIA, but she elected to continue relying on him. See Singh v. Holder,
658 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2011) (due diligence required); Singh v. Gonzales, 491
F.3d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding where an alien has reason to be
suspicious of the quality of her counsel’s representation and does not investigate,
she has not acted with due diligence).
Even if Singh’s motion to reopen were timely, she failed to show that she
had been prejudiced by her attorney’s alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
Accordingly, her motion to reopen is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --