Petra Tobias v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 12-10541 (11th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-10541 Date Filed: 10/10/2012 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-10541 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A099-105-917 PETRA TOBIAS, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 10, 2012) Before BARKETT, PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Petra Tobias seeks review of the BIA s decision to dismiss her motion to Case: 12-10541 Date Filed: 10/10/2012 Page: 2 of 2 reconsider as procedurally barred. She argues that given the circumstances of this case, there is no procedural bar on multiple motions to reconsider. We review the BIA s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Calle v. U.S. Att y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007). An exercise of administrative discretion will not be upheld if it is arbitrary or capricious. Abdi v. U.S. Att y Gen., 430 F.3d 1148, 1149 (11th Cir. 2005). A party may file only one motion to reconsider any given decision and may not seek reconsideration of a decision denying a previous motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). On appeal, Tobias does not argue that she has not filed two motions to reconsider, and any such argument is therefore abandoned. Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Serv., Inc., 572 F.3d 1271, 1293 (11th Cir. 2009). Agency regulations state that only one motion to reconsider can be filed for any decision, and a party may not request reconsideration of a motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). Because there is no argument that she does not have two motions to reconsider, her present motion was her second motion to reconsider. Accordingly, the BIA correctly denied it and did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. PETITION DENIED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.