Brar v. Holder
Brar v. Holder
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Simarjit Kaur Brar and Khushwinder Brar, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely petitioners’ motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than six years after the BIA’s July 9, 1999 order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish that they aeted 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”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.