other arguments relating to the BIA’s denial of her motion to reconsider because she failed to raise them on appeal. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005) (concluding a petitioner abandoned his issue by failing to raise it in his opening brief). Therefore, we deny Fernandez’s petition in part, and dismiss it in part. PETITION DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part. 1 . We note that only the BIA’s order denying Fernandez’s motion to reconsider is before us because Fernandez did not petition us to review the BIA’s other decisions, and she is now precluded from raising any claims related to those decisions. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (providing that an alien has 30 days to file a petition for review); Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 371 F.3d 771, 773 n. 3 (11th Cir.2004)
holding that a time limit for filing a complaint as a creditor in bankruptcy proceedings is not jurisdictional holding that this time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that the time limit for filing a petition for review of a final order of deportation is jurisdictional holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that the statutory time limit for filing a petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable lolling