Case ID: f-appx_493/html/0993-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Oneximo Lozano BERRIO, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
    No. 12-11393
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Oct. 29, 2012.
    Eduardo Rigoberto Soto, Law Office of Eduardo Soto, Coral Gables, FL, for Petitioner.
    Rosanne Perry, David V. Bernal, Krystal Samuels, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Michelle Ressler, District Counsel’s Office Usice, Miami, FL, for Respondent.
    Before CARNES, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Oneximo Lozano Berrio, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied his motion to reconsider the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and for relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Berrio’s challenge to the denial of his application for asylum and denial of relief under the Convention. Berrio failed to petition for review of the order of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), and his motion for reconsideration did not affect the finality of that order, see Jaggernauth v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 432 F.3d 1346, 1350-51 (11th Cir.2005). We dismiss this part of Berrio’s petition.

Berrio abandoned any argument that he could have raised about the denial of his motion to reconsider. Berrio quotes a part of the order denying his motion to reconsider, but he uses the quote in support of his argument that he suffered past persecution and has a well-founded fear of future persecution. Berrio fails to argue that the Board erred in denying his motion for reconsideration. 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).

We dismiss in part and deny in part Berrio’s petition.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.