Resham Singh; Ranjit Singh Rana; Kamal Preet Kaur; Balbir 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RESHAM SINGH; RANJIT SINGH
RANA; KAMAL PREET KAUR;
BALBIR KAUR,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71652
Agency Nos. A095-413-662
A095-413-663
A095-413-664
A095-413-665
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Resham Singh and his family, natives and citizens of India, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion
to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed
FILED
JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-71652 2
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s
September 17, 2004, order dismissing petitioners’ appeal, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish the late filing was due to
deception, fraud or error of former counsel to warrant equitable tolling, see
Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159
(9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --