Philomene S. Amiah vs U.S. Attorney General

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 29, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-12760
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A076-480-564
PHILOMENE S. AMIAH,
a.k.a. Philomene Sea Amiah,
a.k.a. Philomene Sea,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(April 29, 2011)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 3 --

Philomene S. Amiah, through counsel, seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying her motion to reconsider its denial
of her second motion to reopen. On appeal, she attempts to challenge the
underlying BIA decision denying her second motion to reopen. After review of
the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we dismiss the petition in part
and deny the petition in part.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Amiah’s arguments regarding the denial of
her second motion to reopen because she did not file a petition, much less a timely
one, seeking review of the BIA’s October 2009 order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1);
see also Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005)
(noting the filing deadline is not suspended or tolled by a motion to reopen). We
have jurisdiction to review only the BIA’s May 19, 2010, order denying Amiah’s
motion to reconsider the denial of her second motion to reopen, as the instant
petition, filed less than 30 days later, is timely with respect to only that order. 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
Amiah advances no argument that the BIA abused its discretion in denying
her motion to reconsider, and has thus abandoned the only issue properly on
appeal. See Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[A]n
appellant’s simply stating [in her brief] that an issue exists, without further
2

-- 2 of 3 --

argument or discussion, constitutes abandonment of that issue and precludes our
considering the issue on appeal.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition to the
extent Amiah seeks to challenge the underlying order denying her second motion
to reopen and deny the petition to the extent that she challenges the BIA’s order
denying reconsideration of the second motion to reopen.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, PETITION DENIED IN PART.
3

-- 3 of 3 --