Case Name: Haroldo LOPEZ, Julia P. Torres, Sofia M. Lopez, Petitioners, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-10
Citations: 154 F. App'x 182
Docket Number: No. 05-11579; Agency Nos. A95-546-404 & A95-546-405
Parties: Haroldo LOPEZ, Julia P. Torres, Sofia M. Lopez, Petitioners, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
Judges: Before CARNES, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 154
Pages: 182–183

Head Matter:
Haroldo LOPEZ, Julia P. Torres, Sofia M. Lopez, Petitioners, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
No. 05-11579
Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] & [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Nov. 10, 2005.
Jorge de la Mar, Miami, FL, for Petitioners.
John A. Nolet, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before CARNES, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Haroldo Lopez, Julia P. Torres, and Sofía M. Lopez, through counsel, seek review of two Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decisions (1) affirming the Immi gration Judge's ("IJ") order finding them removable and denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("CAT"), 8 U.S.C. § 1158,1281, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c), and (2) denying their motion to reconsider.
Petitioners challenge the BIA's December 10, 2004, decision affirming the IJ's decision. However, we do not have jurisdiction to consider this claim.
"We review questions of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. " Brooks v. Ashcroft, 283 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th Cir.2002). While we generally have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal, the petition for review must be filed within 30 days of the date of the final order of removal. See Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") § 242(a)(1), (b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1). We have held that "[sjince the statutory limit for filing a petition for review in an immigration proceeding is 'mandatory and jurisdictional,' it is not subject to equitable tolling." Dakane v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1272 n. 3 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (citing Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 1549, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995)). A motion to reconsider filed with the BIA does not suspend the finality of the underlying BIA order and does not toll the review period. Stone, 514 U.S. at 405-06, 115 S.Ct. at 1549 (construing the former 90-day period for filing a petition for review under the INA § 106(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)).
We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to review the BIA's final order of removal issued on December 10, 2004. The petitioners were required to file a petition for review of their underlying claims by January 10, 2005. However, they did not do so until March 22, 2005. While the petitioners filed a motion to reconsider the BIA's summary affirmance on January 10, 2005, this filing did not toll the limitations period for filing a petition for review in this Court. See id.
Though we retain jurisdiction to review the March 3, 2005, BIA order denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, they fail to raise any argument with respect to this motion. Accordingly, this claim is abandoned. Mendoza v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1286 n. 3 (11th Cir.2005) (citations omitted).
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties' briefs, we discern no reversible error. Based on the foregoing, we dismiss the petition for review in part and deny the petition for review in part.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.