Neetan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NEETAN SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73831
Agency No. A075-247-194
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Neetan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider its
previous order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
FILED
FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-73831 2
a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reconsider
because he failed to establish any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior
determination that he had not established the due diligence necessary for equitable
tolling of the filing deadline for motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1);
Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678-80 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling
available where petitioner shows he was prevented from filing because of
deception, fraud, or error, and acted with due diligence in discovering such
circumstances).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --