Sarai Padilla-Varela v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 11-60020 (5th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-60020 Document: 00511710487 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-60020 Summary Calendar December 30, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk SARAI PADILLA-VARELA, 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. A078-313-152 Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Sarai Padilla-Varela petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA determined that Padilla-Varela was removable from the United States because she was an alien who had committed an aggravated felony. Padilla-Varela maintains that she is entitled to equitable estoppel of removal because delay by and actions of immigration authorities in processing her application for adjustment of status prevented her from obtaining automatic citizenship by operation of 8 U.S.C. § 1431 (2000). * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-60020 Document: 00511710487 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2011 No. 11-60020 We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA s determination that an alien is deportable because she has committed an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Padilla-Varela does not dispute the BIA s determination that she committed an aggravated felony. We review her equitable estoppel claim attacking the BIA s finding that she is an alien de novo and conclude that it fails. See Robertson-Dewar v. Holder, 646 F.3d 226, 229-30 (5th Cir. 2011). Consequently, Padilla-Varela s petition for review is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction in part and DENIED in part. 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.