
    Lena SIRENKO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74837.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 14, 2010.
    Alexander Morales, Esq., Boghosian Morales & Carrillo, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lena Sirenko, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 Sirenko’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than three years after the BIA’s February 2, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Sirenko failed to demonstrate that she 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).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Sirenko’s remaining contentions.

We grant Alexander Morales’ motion to withdraw as counsel of record. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that Sir-enko is proceeding pro se. Withdrawn counsel shall serve this disposition on Sir-enko.

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