Case Name: Ashot S. ZAKOYAN; Anahit Margaryan, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-21
Citations: 103 F. App'x 319
Docket Number: No. 03-70134
Parties: Ashot S. ZAKOYAN; Anahit Margaryan, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 319–320

Head Matter:
Ashot S. ZAKOYAN; Anahit Margaryan, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-70134.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2004.
Decided July 21, 2004.
Garbis N. Etmekjian, Etmekjian Law Offices, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Phoenix, AZ, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Marion E. Guyton, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioners Ashot S. Zakoyan and Anahit Margaryan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an immigration judge's denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We do not have jurisdiction to review the merits of this case because Zakoyan's petition was untimely filed. We therefore dismiss the petition for review.
The BIA's final order of removal was issued on September 23, 2002. Zakoyan's petition for review was filed on January 9, 2003, one hundred and eight days later. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) provides that "[t]he petition for review must be filed no later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal." Zakoyan's petition therefore should have been received no later than October 23, 2002. Because the requirement of a timely petition for review is "mandatory and jurisdictional, and cannot be tolled," Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003), we lack jurisdiction to review this untimely petition.
We deny Petitioner's January 9, 2003 motion for stay of removal as untimely.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
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.