Humberto Prin Garcia Molina v. U.S. Attorney General , 598 F. App'x 901 ( 2015 )

Case: 14-10657 Date Filed: 04/15/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10657
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A088-094-603
HUMBERTO PRIN GARCIA MOLINA,
JULIETA ANTONIA MILAGROS SANTANDER PALERMO,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(April 15, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Humberto Prin Garcia Molina, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for
review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) January 17, 2014 order
Case: 14-10657 Date Filed: 04/15/2015 Page: 2 of 3
denying his motion to reconsider its denial of his motion to reopen removal
proceedings.1 He does not discuss the substance of that order in his appellate brief,
but instead challenges the BIA’s December 9, 2010 order affirming the denial of
his application for asylum and other relief, and the BIA’s July 29, 2013 order
denying his motion to reopen. Specifically, he contends that the Immigration
Judge (“IJ”) failed to ascribe adequate weight to certain aspects of his testimony at
the removal hearing, and that the BIA wrongly concluded that the new evidence
supporting his motion to reopen did not show changed country conditions.
We review the 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). When a petitioner
fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is deemed abandoned. Sepulveda v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
A petition for review must be filed with a court of appeals no later than
30 days after the date of the BIA’s final order of removal. Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”) § 242(b)(1) & (2), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) & (2). The
statutory time limit for filing a petition for review in an immigration proceeding is
jurisdictional and is not subject to equitable tolling. See Chao Lin v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 677 F.3d 1043, 1044-46 (11th Cir. 2012) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction
1
Although Garcia Molina listed his wife, Julieta Antonia Milagros Santander Palermo, as a
derivative beneficiary in his underlying application for asylum, and the instant petition for
review likewise names her, Garcia Molina does not reference Santander Palermo in his brief on
appeal.
2
Case: 14-10657 Date Filed: 04/15/2015 Page: 3 of 3
a petition for review that this Court’s clerk did not receive until 31 days after the
BIA issued its order).
Under any measure, Garcia Molina’s petition fails. Garcia Molina abandons
on appeal any challenge to the BIA’s January 17, 2014 order denying his motion to
reconsider by not discussing that order in his brief. As to his arguments regarding
the BIA’s December 9, 2010 and July 29, 2013 orders, we lack jurisdiction to
consider those arguments, as the instant February 18, 2014 petition for review was
untimely filed more than 30 days after those orders were issued.
PETITION DENIED.
3