Rosendo Benito Rangel-Perez v. U.S. Attorney General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12963 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar MARCH 10, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
Agency No. A094-809-903
ROSENDO BENITO RANGEL-PEREZ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(March 10, 2011)
Before HULL, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Rosendo Rangel-Perez seeks review of the order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reconsider the BIA’s earlier
order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of cancellation of removal.
On appeal, Rangel-Perez’s brief challenges only the merits of the IJ’s decision
denying him cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Rangel-Perez’s
brief does not address the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider.1
We lack jurisdiction to review the underlying merits of the denial of
cancellation of removal. Rangel-Perez’s June 29, 2010 petition for review was not
filed within thirty days of the entry of the BIA’s July 22, 2009 order affirming the
denial of cancellation of removal. See Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)
§ 242(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269,
1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that the period for filing a petition for
review “is mandatory and jurisdictional, [and] it is not subject to equitable tolling”
(quotation marks omitted)); Jaggernauth v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 432 F.3d 1346, 1350-
51 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does
not affect the finality of a removal order and that the order resolving the motion
1
“We review de novo our own subject matter jurisdiction.” Avila v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 560
F.3d 1281, 1283 (11th Cir. 2009). “We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for
abuse of discretion.” Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation
marks omitted).
2
for reconsideration is a separately appealable final order).2 Accordingly, the
petition is dismissed to the extent Rangel-Perez seeks review of the BIA’s July 22,
2009 order.
Rangel-Perez’s June 29, 2010 petition for review is timely as to the BIA’s
June 1, 2010 denial of his motion for reconsideration. However, Rangel-Perez’s
brief does not offer any argument as to why the BIA abused its discretion in
denying this particular motion. For this reason, Rangel-Perez has abandoned any
argument regarding the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. See
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (“When
an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned.”).
Therefore, the petition is denied as to the BIA’s June 1, 2010 denial of Rangel-
Perez’s motion for reconsideration.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
2
In fact, in August 2009, Rangel-Perez timely filed a petition for review of the BIA’s July
22, 2009 order. On September 10, 2010, a panel of this Court dismissed Rangel-Perez’s petition
for review, concluding that Rangel-Perez, although couching his argument in due process terms,
had effectively presented an abuse-of-discretion argument regarding the discretionary decision to
deny cancellation of removal, a claim this Court does not have jurisdiction to review. See
Rangel-Perez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No. 09-13934 (11th Cir. Sept. 10, 2010) (unpublished). In both
his earlier appeal and this appeal, Rangel-Perez’s arguments focus primarily on whether the IJ
erred in finding that Rangel-Perez had not made the showing of exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship required for cancellation of removal.
3