
    Gurinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71417.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2011.
    Jaime Jasso, Esquire, Law Offices of Jaime Jasso, Westlake Village, CA, for Petitioner.
    John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Jaesa McLin, Riguer Silva, LLC, Kenner, LA, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gurinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to rescind his in absentia removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion as number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(H), and Singh failed to demonstrate that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (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”).

Singh’s contention that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(h) is unconstitutional is unavailing.

To the extent Singh challenges the immigration judge’s June 11, 1998, decision, we lack jurisdiction because Singh did not appeal from that decision to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Singh’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     