[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 5, 2007
No. 06-12260 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
BIA Nos. A76-976-104 & A95-543-829
MARIA ISABEL RAMOS BOHORQUEZ,
ANGELICA CIFUENTES-RAMOS,
YESSICA CIFUENTES-RAMOS,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(January 5, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Maria Isabel Ramos-Bohorquez and her daughters Angelica Cifuentes-
Ramos and Yessica Cifuentes-Ramos (collectively referred to as “Petitioners”)
petition this Court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order
affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”), and the BIA’s order denying their motion to reconsider. For the
following reasons, we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part.
I. Background
Petitioners, natives and citizens of Colombia, filed an application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief alleging that lead petitioner
Ramos-Boherquez had suffered persecution from the Revolutionary Armed Forces
of Columbia (“FARC”) due to her membership in a particular social group and that
she feared for her safety if she returned to Columbia. The IJ denied Petitioners’
application, and on December 30, 2005, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial. On
January 28, 2006, Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, and the BIA
denied the motion on March 16, 2006. On April 14, 2006, Petitioners filed the
instant petition for review with this Court. In response, the Government argues
that we lack jurisdiction to consider arguments challenging the BIA’s affirmance
of the IJ’s decision and that Petitioners have abandoned their claims regarding the
BIA’s denial of the motion for reconsideration.
II. Discussion
2
We review de novo whether we have subject matter jurisdiction. Brooks v.
Ashcroft, 283 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th Cir. 2002). An IJ’s order of removal becomes
final when it is affirmed by the BIA. See 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(a) (providing that an
order of removal becomes final upon dismissal of an appeal by the BIA).
Although we ordinarily have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal, by
statute, a petitioner must file a petition for review within 30 days of the issuance of
the final order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). This statutory limit for filing a petition
for review is “mandatory and jurisdictional,” and is not subject to equitable tolling.
Dakane v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting
Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 1549, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995)).
And filing a motion to reconsider does not suspend the finality of the order and
does not toll the 30-day limitations period. Stone, 514 U.S. at 394-95, 115 S.Ct. at
1543-44.
Here, Petitioners filed the instant petition for review on April 14,
2006—more than 30 days after the BIA’s December 30, 2005 order affirming the
IJ’s denial of relief. Therefore, Petitioners failed to file a timely petition for review
of the December 30, 2005 order, and we have no jurisdiction to consider the merits
of that decision. Accordingly, to the extent that the arguments pertain to that order,
we dismiss the petition.
We do, however, have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s March 16, 2006
3
order denying Petitioners’ motion to reconsider, as their petition for review is
timely regarding that order. See id. But Petitioners raise no arguments concerning
that order in their initial brief before this Court. By failing to argue this issue in
their brief, they are deemed to have abandoned it. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Attorney
Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (holding that where a
party fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned). Accordingly,
we deny their petition for review with regard to the motion to reconsider.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS the petition as to the BIA’s
December 30, 2005 order and DENY the petition as to the BIA’s March 16, 2006
order.
4