Kamaljit 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).
NHY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAMALJIT KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70881
Agency No. A079-267-267
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Kamaljit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion,
FILED
JAN 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NHY/Research 07-70881 2
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 as untimely Kaur’s motion
to reopen because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s April
29, 2004, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kaur failed to establish grounds
for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897-98 (deadline for filing a
motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from
filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due
diligence”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --