Case: 13-12841 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12841
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A200-853-258
GLENDON ASSIS MIRANDA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(March 28, 2014)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-12841 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Glendon Assiss Miranda, proceeding pro se, appeals the Board of
Immigration’s (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his
application for cancellation of removal, pursuant to Immigration and Nationality
Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), as well as the order that denied his motion for
reconsideration. On appeal, Miranda argues that the BIA and IJ erred by
determining that he was not eligible for relief of cancellation of removal because
he did not establish that removal would result in an exceptional and extremely
undue hardship to a qualifying relative. He does not raise any arguments that
challenge the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. After careful review,
we deny the petition in part, and dismiss it in part.
“We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo.” Amaya-Artunduaga v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). We review the BIA’s
denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Assa’ad v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 332 F.3d 1321, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003). “While we read briefs filed by
pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are
deemed abandoned[.]” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008)
(internal citations omitted).
First, we lack jurisdiction over Miranda’s claim that the BIA and IJ erred by
determining that he was not eligible for relief of cancellation of removal. The
immigration statute makes clear that a petition to review a decision by the BIA
2
Case: 13-12841 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 3 of 3
must be filed with the Court of Appeals within 30 days of the final order of
removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). This deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional,
and it is not subject to equitable tolling. Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d
1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005). The deadline is not tolled by a motion to
reconsider. Id.
In this appeal, we do not have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s final order
affirming the IJ’s denial of relief because Miranda did not file the petition for
review within 30 days of the BIA’s final order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The
BIA’s order was issued on April 11, 2013, and Miranda filed his petition for
review on June 17, 2013. Miranda’s motion for reconsideration did not toll the
time limitation, and thus, we are without jurisdiction to review the final order of
removal. See Dakane, 399 F.3d at 1272 n.3. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition
so far as it seeks review of that order.
As for the BIA’s denial of Miranda’s motion for reconsideration, Miranda
has not challenged this order on appeal. Even construing his brief liberally, we can
find no arguments concerning this order and conclude that he has failed to brief the
issue. As a result, he has abandoned the issue and we deny this part of the petition
for review. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874.
DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
3