[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12772 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar NOVEMBER 1, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
Agency No. A079-492-478
JAVIER ROBERTO RINCON-RAMIREZ,
LUZ DARY HERNANDEZ-GALLEGO,
MELISSA RINCON-HERNANDEZ,
JOSE R. RINCON-HERNANDEZ,
MIGUEL RINCON-HERNANDEZ,
lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(November 1, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On June 18, 2010, Javier Roberto Rincon-Ramirez, his wife, Luz Dary
Hernandez-Gallego, and their three children, Melissa Rincon-Hernandez, Jose
Rincon-Hernandez, and Miguel Rincon-Hernandez (collectively, “Petitioners”)
filed a pro se petition for review. In their petition, the Petitioners sought review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), dated May 19, 2010,
denying their motion to reopen the BIA’s previous decision, dated February 20,
2009. The BIA’s February 2009 decision affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)
denial of the Petitioners’ application for asylum and withholding of removal under
the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231, and relief
under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 208.16. In their pro
se brief on appeal, the Petitioners challenge only the BIA’s February 2009
decision affirming the denial of their application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief. They make no reference to their motion to reopen or to
the BIA’s May 2010 denial of that motion.
We review our subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479
F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 2007). While we generally have jurisdiction to review
2
final orders of removal, the petition for review must be filed within 30 days of the
date of the final order of removal. INA § 242(a)(1), (b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1),
(b)(1). We do not have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal if the
petition for review is not filed within that deadline because “the statutory limit for
filing a petition for review in an immigration proceeding 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) (per curiam) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
While we liberally construe briefs filed by pro se litigants, Lorisme v. I.N.S.,
129 F.3d 1441, 1444 n.3 (11th Cir. 1997), “[w]hen an appellant fails to offer
argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned,” Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401
F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
Because the Petitioners did not file their petition for review within 30 days
of the BIA’s order denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and CAT relief, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of that decision.
And because the Petitioners make no argument concerning their motion to reopen
in their opening brief, they have abandoned the issue. Accordingly, we dismiss
the petition for review in part and deny it in part.
DISMISSED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
3