Case ID: f-appx_98/html/0681-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eduard HAKOBYAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-73941,
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 10, 2004.
    
    Decided May 20, 2004.
    Eduard Hakobyan, Glendale, CA, pro se.
    Yeznik O. Kazandjian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., Larry P. Cote, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eduard Hakobyan, a native of Iran and a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen his in absentia removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and we review de novo the interpretation of purely legal questions. Lin v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review

Hakobyan concedes that he filed his motion to reopen late, but contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling. This contention fails because Hakobyan did not show that his failure to meet the 180-day deadline constituted anything more than a “garden variety claim of excusable negleet.” See Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, No. 03-70477, 2004 WL 785076, at *7 (9th Cir. Apr.14, 2004), Hakobyan’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the motion for stay of removal was granted, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, to the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.