Vallin

MEMORANDUM **

Humberto Vallin petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ termination of his conditional permanent resident status and concomitant denial of permanent residence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(2), (4). We deny the petition.

(1) Vallin first asserts that the Immigration and Naturalization Service should have been estopped from claiming that he was not a permanent resident. However, he has not shown that the INS engaged in affirmative misconduct rather than, at most, mere negligence. See INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14, 17-19 , 103 S.Ct. 281, 283-84 , 74 L.Ed.2d 12 (1982) (per curiam); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). No deliberate he or pattern of false promises has been spelled out. See Mukherjee v. INS, 793 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.1986). Moreover, Vallin fails to show that a serious injustice would result or that the public interest would not suffer unduly if the INS were estopped. Id. at 1008-09 . Thus, there can be no estoppel.

(2) Next, Vallin asserts that laches should bar the INS because it took too long—eight years—to proceed. But, laches has been consistently rejected as a bar to government action. See Costello v.…