
    Eugenio Everado CAMACHO-CONTRERAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73303.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 26, 2010.
    Reynold E. Finnegan, II, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Finnegan & Diba a Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kristin Edison, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eugenio Everado Camacho-Contreras, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Camacho-Contreras’ motion to reopen because it was filed more than six years after the BIA’s March 25, 2002, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Camacho-Contreras failed to demonstrate that he acted 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”); see also Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir.2007).

Camacho-Contreras’ remaining contention is unavailing.

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