Case: 11-15527 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15527
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A095-571-506
GERARDO ANTONIO ZALUDA SAN JUAN,
llllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllPetitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllRespondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(August 7, 2012)
Before CARNES, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gerardo Antonio Zaluda San Juan petitions for review of the denial by the
Case: 11-15527 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 2 of 3
Board of Immigration Appeals of his motion for reconsideration of a final order of
removal. San Juan argues that, when the Board affirmed his order of removal, it
erred in ruling that he was ineligible for adjustment of status. San Juan contends
that he was eligible for adjustment of status based on his marriage to Minerva
Pagsanjan, within 90 days of San Juan’s entry into the United States on a K-1 visa,
even though their marriage was dissolved before the adjudication of his
application for adjustment. We dismiss in part and deny in part.
A petitioner for review of a final order of removal must file his petition
within 30 days of the issuance of that order. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). This deadline
is “mandatory and jurisdictional,” Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1272
n.3 (11th Cir. 2005), and is not tolled by the filing of a motion to reconsider,
Jaggernauth v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 432 F.3d 1346, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 2005). When
a petitioner fails to argue or makes only a passing reference to an issue in his
initial brief, the issue is abandoned. See Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d
1138, 1145 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d
1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (issues not raised are abandoned); Greenbriar,
Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989) (a passing
reference to an issue in a brief fails to preserve that issue). We do not address
arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See, e.g., Al Najjar v. Ashcroft,
2
Case: 11-15527 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 3 of 3
257 F.3d 1262, 1283 n.12 (11th Cir. 2001) (an issue not raised in an initial brief is
abandoned); see also United States v. Levy, 379 F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th Cir. 2004)
(We “repeatedly ha[ve] refused to consider issues raised for the first time in an
appellant’s reply brief.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider San Juan’s arguments about the decision of
the Board on June 13, 2011, that affirmed his order of removal. San Juan failed to
file a timely petition for review of that order. We dismiss San Juan’s petition
insofar as it challenges that order. See Dakane, 399 F.3d at 1272 n.3.
San Juan abandoned any argument that he could have raised about the
decision of the Board on October 26, 2011, that denied his motion for
reconsideration. In his initial brief, San Juan mentions his motion for
reconsideration only as a matter of the procedural history of his petition. He fails
to offer any argument that the Board erred in denying that motion. Nor does he
cite any law about motions for reconsideration. Although San Juan argues in his
reply brief that the Board erred in denying his motion for reconsideration, we do
not address arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See Al Najjar, 257
F.3d at 1283 n.12; see also Levy, 379 F.3d at 1244.
We dismiss in part and deny in part San Juan’s petition.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
3