thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of asylum applications from the victims of this war, on both sides, or, as in the case of Hernandez, on neither, waiting for the danger to pass, to a time when it could comfortably turn these applications down, regardless of what it means to those who have built a life here.” Like the agency, we are unpersuaded. The doctrine of equitable estoppel is not available against the government “except in the most serious of circumstances.” See Drozd v. INS, 155 F.3d 81, 90 (2d Cir. 1998). “Specifically, estoppel will only be applied upon a showing of ‘affirmative misconduct’ by the government.’ ” Rojas-Reyes v. INS, 235 F.3d 115, 126 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Drozd, 155 F.3d at 90); see INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14, 19, 103 S.Ct. 281, 74 L.Ed.2d 12 (1982) (<HOLDING>); see also Mejia-Perez v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d
holding that a refusal to make false statements that no misconduct occurred is a very different circumstance  than an affirmative statement of misconduct holding that a failure to advise even when the defendant has an affirmative obligation to do so is not the same as engaging in affirmative misconduct  holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence holding that delays by the government in processing an immigration application did not qualify as affirmative misconduct holding that plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to allege affirmative misconduct on the part of the government