Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

362 F. App'x 656

Matharo v. Holder

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided January 13, 2010

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2010-01-13

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Iturribarria v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Singh v. Gonzales

Decided 2010-01-13

¶1 MEMORANDUM

¶2 Gary Paul Matharo, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen 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 reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

¶3 The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Matharo’s motion because it was filed more than 6 years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Matharo failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling, see Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir.2007) (requiring petitioner to act with due diligence to definitively learn of the ineffective assistance after he becomes suspicious of it).

¶4 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

¶5 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

/362/fappx/656 · .json · Public domain