[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 3 
2

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.

Case: 14-10657 Date Filed: 04/15/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
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.

Case: 14-10657 Date Filed: 04/15/2015 Page: 3 of 3