[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-12841

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A200-853-258

GLENDON ASSIS MIRANDA, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(March 28, 2014)

Before MARCUS, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-12841 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Glendon Assiss Miranda, proceeding pro se, appeals the Board of 

Immigration’s (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his 

application for cancellation of removal, pursuant to Immigration and Nationality 

Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), as well as the order that denied his motion for 

reconsideration. On appeal, Miranda argues that the BIA and IJ erred by 

determining that he was not eligible for relief of cancellation of removal because 

he did not establish that removal would result in an exceptional and extremely 

undue hardship to a qualifying relative. He does not raise any arguments that 

challenge the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. After careful review, 

we deny the petition in part, and dismiss it in part.

“We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo.” Amaya-Artunduaga v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). We review the BIA’s 

denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Assa’ad v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 332 F.3d 1321, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003). “While we read briefs filed by 

pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are 

deemed abandoned[.]” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) 

(internal citations omitted). 

First, we lack jurisdiction over Miranda’s claim that the BIA and IJ erred by 

determining that he was not eligible for relief of cancellation of removal. The 

immigration statute makes clear that a petition to review a decision by the BIA 

Case: 13-12841 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 2 of 3 
3

must be filed with the Court of Appeals within 30 days of the final order of 

removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). This deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional, 

and it is not subject to equitable tolling. Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 

1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005). The deadline is not tolled by a motion to 

reconsider. Id.

In this appeal, we do not have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s final order 

affirming the IJ’s denial of relief because Miranda did not file the petition for 

review within 30 days of the BIA’s final order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The 

BIA’s order was issued on April 11, 2013, and Miranda filed his petition for 

review on June 17, 2013. Miranda’s motion for reconsideration did not toll the 

time limitation, and thus, we are without jurisdiction to review the final order of 

removal. See Dakane, 399 F.3d at 1272 n.3. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition 

so far as it seeks review of that order.

As for the BIA’s denial of Miranda’s motion for reconsideration, Miranda 

has not challenged this order on appeal. Even construing his brief liberally, we can 

find no arguments concerning this order and conclude that he has failed to brief the 

issue. As a result, he has abandoned the issue and we deny this part of the petition 

for review. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874.

DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

Case: 13-12841 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 3 of 3