Lena Sirenko 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LENA SIRENKO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74837
Agency No. A079-531-111
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Lena Sirenko, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen based
on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
FILED
APR 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74837 2
§ 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, 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 Sirenko’s motion to reopen
because the motion was filed more than three years after the BIA’s February 2,
2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and
Sirenko failed to demonstrate that she acted with the due diligence required for
equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available
“when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as
long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 491
F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2007).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Sirenko’s remaining contentions.
We grant Alexander Morales’ motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The
Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that Sirenko is proceeding pro se.
Withdrawn counsel shall serve this disposition on Sirenko.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --