Oneximo Lozano Berrio v. U.S. Attorney General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11393
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A089-232-922
ONEXIMO LOZANO BERRIO,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllRespondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(October 29, 2012)
Before CARNES, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Oneximo Lozano Berrio, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied his motion
Case: 12-11393 Date Filed: 10/29/2012 Page: 1 of 2

-- 1 of 2 --

2
to reconsider the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal
under the Immigration and Nationality Act and for relief under the Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Berrio’s challenge to the denial of his
application for asylum and denial of relief under the Convention. Berrio failed to
petition for review of the order of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), and his motion
for reconsideration did not affect the finality of that order, see Jaggernauth v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 432 F.3d 1346, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 2005). We dismiss this part of
Berrio’s petition.
Berrio abandoned any argument that he could have raised about the denial of
his motion to reconsider. Berrio quotes a part of the order denying his motion to
reconsider, but he uses the quote in support of his argument that he suffered past
persecution and has a well-founded fear of future persecution. Berrio fails to argue
that the Board erred in denying his motion for reconsideration. See Lapaix v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 1138, 1145 (11th Cir.2010); see also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
We dismiss in part and deny in part Berrio’s petition.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
Case: 12-11393 Date Filed: 10/29/2012 Page: 2 of 2

-- 2 of 2 --