[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
U.S.
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 17, 2011
No. 10-12239 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A097-956-106
SINESIA MARIA RABELO,
a.k.a. Maria Rabelo Sinesia,
lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(February 17, 2011)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sinesia Maria Rabelo seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(BIA) order dismissing her motion to reconsider her second motion to reopen her
removal proceedings. On appeal, she challenges only the denial of her first
motion to reopen her removal proceedings and the merits of the underlying
removal order. We lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of Rabelo’s first motion
to reopen because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a
timely petition for review of that decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Amaya-
Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006) (noting we
lack jurisdiction to consider claims not raised before the BIA). Our review on
appeal is thus limited to whether the BIA abused its discretion in affirming the IJ’s
decision denying the motion for reconsideration of the order denying Rabelo’s
second motion to reopen. Because Rabelo does not attack the BIA’s
determination that her second motion to reopen was numerically barred, or present
any argument that an exception existed that would overcome the number bar, she
has abandoned those arguments. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226,
1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (“When an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue,
that issue is abandoned.”).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition to the extent that Rabelo seeks to
challenge the IJ’s underlying order of removal and the denial of her first motion to
2
reopen. We deny the petition to the extent that she challenges the BIA’s denial of
her motion for reconsideration.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
3