Opinion
No. 06-75470.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed March 1, 2010.
Tsz-Hai Huang, Rai Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Sada Manickam, Esq., 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. Agency No. A073-426-080.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Balraj Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider its prior order denying reopening based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 790 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA was within its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's June 23, 2006, decision denying reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
Singh's remaining contention is unpersuasive.