Case ID: f-appx_535/html/0444-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Linas BARANAUSKAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-60941
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 15, 2013.
    Saad Ahmad, Attorney, Saad Ahmad & Associates, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Yedidya Cohen, Trial Attorney, David Y. Bernal, Assistant Director, Tangerlia Cox, Lindsay Brooke Glauner, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Linas Baranauskas, a native and citizen of Lithuania and an illegal alien, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of (1) the denial by an immigration judge (“D”) of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings and rescind the in absentia removal order issued against him and (2) the denial of his request for sua sponte reopening. There is no dispute that Baranauskas’s motion to reopen was not filed within 180 days after the order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). In that motion, Baranauskas sought equitable tolling based on alleged misinformation from an immigration consultant.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in construing Baranauskas’s equitable-tolling argument as a request for the IJ to reopen the removal proceedings sua sponte. See Ramos-Bonilla v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216, 220 (5th Cir.2008). To the extent Bara-nauskas argues that the BIA erred in dismissing the appeal of the IJ’s denial, the petition for review is DENIED. To the extent Baranauskas challenges the basis for the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from the IJ’s refusal to reopen, the petition for review is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. See id. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.