[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
May 9, 2006
No. 05-14593 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
BIA Nos. A95-905-073 & A95-905-074
LEONARDO BERRIO,
GLORIA INES MESA,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petitions for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(May 9, 2006)
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Leonardo Berrio and his wife, Gloria Ines Mesa, through counsel, seek
judicial review of their final order of removal, denying their application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”), and a subsequent order denying a motion for reopening and
reconsideration. However, petitioners brief arguments regarding an order over
which we do not have jurisdiction and fail to present arguments regarding an order
over which we do have jurisdiction. Consequently, we DISMISS the petition to
the extent that we lack jurisdiction and DENY the petition to the extent that
petitioners fail to present legal arguments justifying their position.
I. BACKGROUND
In June 1999, petitioners arrived in the United States as nonimmigrant
visitors for pleasure who had authorization to stay until 19 December, 1999. In
June 2002, petitioners filed for asylum, withholding of removal and protection
under CAT. In April 2004, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) assigned to the case
concluded that petitioners were removable as charged, that they failed to file timely
for asylum and failed to qualify for exceptions to the time limit, and that they were
not entitled to relief under CAT. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
affirmed the IJ’s decision on 31 May 2005. On 30 June 2005, petitioners filed a
motion with the BIA to reopen and reconsider its prior decision. The BIA denied
that motion on 5 August 2005, and petitions filed this petition on 22 August 2005.
2
On appeal, petitioners argue that the BIA, in its 31 May 2005 order, had a
duty to provide sufficient information in its decision to show that it conducted its
own evaluation of the adverse credibility finding made by the IJ, and, by failing to
do so, the BIA denied petitioners a fair administrative appeal. The government
responds that we lack jurisdiction to review the May 2005 final order of removal
because petitioners did not seek our review within 30 days. Regarding the BIA’s 5
August 2005 denial of petitioners’ motion to reopen and reconsider, the
government argues that petitioners have waived all arguments regarding the BIA’s
denial of that motion by not referencing the August order.
II. DISCUSSION
We review questions regarding our jurisdiction de novo. Okongwu v. Reno,
229 F.3d 1327, 1329 (11th Cir. 2000). Petitioners must seek review of final
removal orders within 30 days from the date the decision was rendered. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(1), (b)(1). Because the statutory limit for filing a petition for review in
an immigration proceeding is “mandatory and jurisdictional,” it is not subject to
equitable tolling. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 398, 405, 115 S. Ct. 1537, 1545,
1549 (1995) (construing the former 90-day period for filing a petition for review
under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)). The filing deadline is not suspended or tolled by the
filing of a motion for reconsideration. Id. at 395–96, 115 S. Ct. at 1544–45.
3
On 22 August 2005, petitioners filed their petition for review with this court,
which is nearly three months after the issuance of the BIA’s decision on 31 May
2005 affirming the IJ’s order of removal. Although they filed a motion to reopen
and reconsider on 30 June 2005, that motion does not toll the time for filing a
petition for review with regard to the final order of removal. Thus, they failed to
meet the 30-day filing deadline that would allow us to review the May 2005 final
order of removal. We, therefore, lack jurisdiction to review that order and dismiss
the petition to the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s 22 May 2005 order
affirming the IJ’s removal order.
Petitioners did file a timely appeal with regard to the BIA’s August 2005
denial of their motion to reopen and reconsider. However, petitioners did not make
any argument regarding the denial of the motion to reopen and reconsider in their
brief. In fact, no reference is made to the 5 August 2005 BIA order in the
petitioner’s brief and their statement of jurisdiction cites only the May order.
“Issues that are not clearly outlined in an appellant’s initial brief are deemed
abandoned.” Allison v. McGhan Med. Corp., 184 F.3d 1300, 1317 n.17 (11th Cir.
1999). Petitioners, therefore, have abandoned all arguments regarding the BIA’s
August denial of their motion for reconsideration. We, therefore, deny the petition
as to the motion for reopening and reconsideration.
4
III. CONCLUSION
We have reviewed Berrio and Mesa’s petition for review of the BIA’s
decision denying their motion for reopening and reconsideration. We conclude
that we lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ claim as it relates to the May final
order of removal and that petitioners have abandoned review of the denial of their
motion for reopening and reconsideration. Consequently, insofar as petitioners
challenge the May order of the BIA, the petition is DISMISSED, and, insofar as
their petition seeks review the August order of the BIA, the petition is DENIED.
5