[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-10744 OCTOBER 7, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
Agency No. A075-972-703
NOOR MOHAMMAD, a.k.a. Sharif Islam,
FARHANA MOHAMMAD,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllRespondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(October 7, 2011)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Noor Mohammad and his wife, Farhana Mohammad, citizens of
Bangladesh, jointly petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(BIA) denial of their motion for reconsideration of its earlier order affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of cancellation of removal. Petitioners argue the
IJ and the BIA erred in denying them cancellation of removal, as they established
their eligibility for such relief.
An alien seeking review of a final order of removal must file a petition for
review within 30 days of the issuance of the final order. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
The 30-day deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
399 F.3d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005). The finality of a removal order is not
affected by the filing of a motion to reconsider. Jaggernauth v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
432 F.3d 1346, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 2005).
Here, because the petitioners failed to file a timely petition for review of the
BIA’s March 23, 2010, order affirming the IJ’s decision, we lack jurisdiction to
review that order. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition to the extent that it
challenges those decisions. See Dakane, 399 F.3d at 1272 n.3. Although we
retain jurisdiction to review the BIA’s January 21, 2011, decision denying the
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, the petitioners do not offer argument on
how the BIA erred in denying that motion. Rather, the petitioners’ arguments are
2
focused on the BIA’s March 23, 2010, decision denying their application for
cancellation of removal, and how they believe they established their eligibility for
such relief during their proceedings. Because the petitioners have abandoned any
arguments they potentially could have raised regarding the BIA’s denial of their
motion for reconsideration, we deny the remainder of the petition. See Sepulveda
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (providing that issues
not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned); see also Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of
Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989) (providing that a passing
reference to an issue in a brief is insufficient to properly raise that issue).
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
3