
    Dennis DUMAW, Petitioner, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent.
    No. 02-73020.
    OSHA No. 2001-ERA-6.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 9, 2003.
    
    Decided Sept. 18, 2003.
    Mary Ruth Mann, Esq., Leo McGuigan, Law Offices of Mary Ruth Mann and Associates, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Barbara Eby Racine, Esq., U.S. Dept of Justice Office of the Solicitor, FLS Division, Eugene Scalia, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor Solicitor of Labor, Janet R. Dunlop, Esq., U.S. DOL Administrative Review Board, Steven J. Mandel, Esq., U.S. DOL Division of Fair Labor Standards, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before THOMPSON, HAWKINS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The only question raised in this appeal is whether “extraordinary circumstances” exist to warrant equitable tolling of 29 C.F.R. § 24.8, the Department of Labor’s ten-business day limitation period to file a petition for review of an Administrative Law Judge’s recommended decision. Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.

“Extraordinary circumstances” is a very high standard that is only met where even the exercise of diligence would not have resulted in timely filing. See, e.g., Stoll v. Runyon, 165 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir.1999) (“complete psychiatric disability” during the entirety of the limitations period); Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 107 F.3d 696 (9th Cir.1996) (incarceration in a foreign country for the entirety of the limitations period). “Extraordinary circumstances” does not extend to excusable neglect. Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990).

While Mr. McGuigan’s situation may amount to excusable neglect, it does not constitute “extraordinary circumstances.” Nothing in the record suggests that McGuigan was incapable of performing legal work during the limitations period. He was coming into the office, made at least one court appearance, and completed several summary judgment motions during that time. We therefore find that extraordinary circumstances did not exist.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.
     