Linas Baranauskas v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-60941 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-60941 Document: 00512307310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED July 15, 2013 No. 12-60941 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk LINAS BARANAUSKAS, Petitioner, versus ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A 077 661 766 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Linas Baranauskas, a native and citizen of Lithuania and an illegal alien, * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 12-60941 Document: 00512307310 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/15/2013 No. 12-60941 petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) dismissing his appeal of (1) the denial by an immigration judge ( IJ ) 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 Baranauskas 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. 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.