Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
George T. Heridis, Rai & Associates, Pc, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Richard M. Evans, Paul Fiorino, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Avtar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1105(a). We review for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and deny the petition for review.
Singh submitted new evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel with his motion to reconsider, but did not identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's denial of his underlying motion to reopen as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reconsider. See Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000) (the BIA does not abuse its discretion unless it acts arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law) (quotation omitted).
Page 956.
Singh's remaining contentions lack merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.