Harmesh Singh Sheemar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HARMESH SINGH SHEEMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71110
Agency No. A073-426-189
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Harmesh Singh Sheemar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen deportation
proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
JUL 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71110 2
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo
due process violations in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Sheemar’s motion to
reopen because the record indicates that written notice of his July 18, 1996, hearing
was personally served on him at his May 9, 1996, hearing, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252b(a)(2)(A) (1995), and the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen
failed to establish grounds for tolling the 180-day filing deadline, see Iturribarria
v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling is available to a
petitioner who is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud, or error, and
exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances). It follows that the
agency did not violate Sheemar’s due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for due process violation).
Sheemar’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --