Bijai Chand 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BIJAI CHAND,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72791
Agency No. A044-955-792
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Court Judges.
Bijai Chand, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
FILED
NOV 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72791 2
reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chand’s motion to reopen as
untimely where he filed the motion more than six years after his final order of
removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90
days of final order), and failed allege ineffective assistance against his third
attorney who represented him between July 2009 and November 2010, see
Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679-80 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is
prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, and exercised due
diligence in discovering such circumstances).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --