Case: 12-10387 Date Filed: 08/10/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10387
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A094-873-358
MARTHA ZULEMA BALBUENA CONSTANTINI,
MARTHA CELINDA BALBUENA,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(August 10, 2012)
Before CARNES, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-10387 Date Filed: 08/10/2012 Page: 2 of 3
Martha Zulema Balbuena Constantini and her daughter, Mariana Celinda
Balbuena, are both Venezuelan citizens. On January 23, 2012, they filed a petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) denial of their motion
for reconsideration of its July 29, 2011, final order of removal affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) order of removal. The petitioners assert the BIA and IJ
both erred in denying asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and
Nationality Act, and withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention
Against Torture because: (1) the BIA and IJ both made improper findings
regarding credibility; (2) the BIA and IJ both improperly found the petitioners did
not sufficiently corroborate their claims; (3) the IJ improperly found relief was
barred by the doctrine of firm resettlement; and (4) the IJ improperly denied relief
as a matter of discretion.
We review our subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 1223, 1231 (11th Cir. 2007). Although we generally have
jurisdiction to consider final orders of removal, a petitioner must file a petition for
review no later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(1), (b)(1). This 30-day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional, and is
not subject to equitable tolling. Dakane v U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1272
n.3 (11th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the filing of a motion to reconsider does not
2
Case: 12-10387 Date Filed: 08/10/2012 Page: 3 of 3
suspend or toll the deadline for filing a petition for review of the BIA’s final order
of removal. See id.
We do not have jurisdiction over the petitioners’ claims, which challenge
the BIA’s final order of removal, because they filed their petition for review more
than 30 days after the date of the BIA’s order. The petitioners have not presented
any argument that the BIA abused its discretion by denying their motion for
reconsideration, and they have, therefore, abandoned the issue. See Calle v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007) (reviewing BIA’s denial of
motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion); Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401
F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating petitioner abandons any issue on
which she fails to present argument on appeal). Accordingly, we dismiss the
petition for review in part, and deny it in part.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
3