Case Name: Petra TOBIAS, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-10
Citations: 492 F. App'x 32
Docket Number: No. 12-10541
Parties: Petra TOBIAS, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
Judges: Before BARKETT, PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 492
Pages: 32–32

Head Matter:
Petra TOBIAS, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
No. 12-10541
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Oct. 10, 2012.
Gary J. Yerman, Yerman & Associates, LLC, New York, NY, for Petra Tobias.
Brianne Whelan Cohen, David V. Ber-nal, Andrew Nathan O’Malley, Krystal Samuels, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Nicole Guzman, DHS, Office of Chief Counsel, Orlando, FL, for U.S. Attorney General.
Before BARKETT, PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Petra Tobias seeks review of the BIA's decision to dismiss her motion to reconsider as procedurally barred. She argues that given the circumstances of this case, there is no procedural bar on multiple motions to reconsider.
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). An exercise of administrative discretion will not be upheld if it is arbitrary or capricious. Abdi v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 430 F.3d 1148, 1149 (11th Cir.2005). "A party may file only one motion to reconsider any given decision and may not seek reconsideration of a decision denying a previous motion to reconsider." 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).
On appeal, Tobias does not argue that she has not filed two motions to reconsider, and any such argument is therefore abandoned. Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Serv., Inc., 572 F.3d 1271, 1293 (11th Cir.2009). Agency regulations state that only one motion to reconsider can be filed for any decision, and a party may not request reconsideration of a motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). Because there is no argument that she does not have two motions to reconsider, her present motion was her second motion to reconsider. Accordingly, the BIA correctly denied it and did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
PETITION DENIED.