history of this case. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006). An alien seeking to reopen proceedings is required to file a motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no dispute that Williams’s motion to reopen, filed more than six years after his final order of removal, was untimely. Williams contends, however, that the time limitation should be tolled because he exercised due diligence in pursuing his claim that the first attorney who represented him in his removal proceedings provided ineffective assistance. See Rashid v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 127, 132 (2d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Williams is correct that the BIA erred in
recognizing that equitable tolling doctrines may toll the time period for filing holding that in order to warrant equitable tolling alien claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the case during the period the alien seeks to toll internal quotation marks omitted holding that a petitioner must act with due diligence when pursuing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to benefit from equitable tolling of deadlines holding that to establish a violation of due process an alien must show that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her claims internal quotation marks omitted holding that alien demonstrated deportation proceedings were fundamentally unfair when alien was deprived effective assistance of counsel