Robin Whiteley v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-60355 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-60355 Document: 00512238362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-60355 Summary Calendar May 10, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ROBIN NEAL WHITELEY, also known as Robin Whiteley, Petitioner v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A090 888 003 Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robin Neal Whiteley, a native and citizen of Mexico, was ordered removed from the United States in October 2001. In October 2011, Whiteley filed a motion to reopen, seeking reconsideration of the removal order. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Whiteley s motion to reopen after finding that it was time barred. The IJ also determined that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion to reopen because it was filed after Whiteley was removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Whiteley s appeal * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 12-60355 Document: 00512238362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2013 No. 12-60355 after finding, inter alia, that the motion was time barred and that Whiteley was not entitled to equitable tolling of the 90-day time limit for filing a motion to reopen. The BIA also determined that Whiteley had departed the U.S. after he was ordered removed and therefore the IJ was without jurisdiction to consider the motion to reopen. With respect to the BIA s time-bar and equitable tolling determinations, the case law of this circuit does not provide the relief that Whiteley seeks. See Ramos-Bonilla v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216, 220 (5th Cir. 2008); Amali v. Gonzales, 235 F. App x 212, 213 (5th Cir. 2007); Torabi v. Gonzales, 165 F. App x 326, 32931 (5th Cir. 2006). Moreover, because Whiteley s motion to reopen was time barred, this court need not address the BIA s application of the departure bar. See Garcia-Carias v. Holder, 697 F.3d 257, 261-66 (5th Cir. 2012); Ovalles v. Holder, 577 F.3d 288 (5th Cir. 2009); Ramos-Bonilla, 543 F.3d at 219-20. PETITION FOR REVIEW 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.
