Petitioner Martin Edgar Cabello-Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the *183 Board of Immigration Appeal (BIA) denying his motion for reconsideration as untimely. Cabello-Chavez’s pro se brief fails entirely to address the BIA’s finding that his motion to reconsider was untimely and instead challenges the BIA’s previous order denying his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s determination that he was a removable alien and that he was ineligible for relief from removal. Because CabelloChavez fails to address the basis of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider, he has abandoned any argument that challenges that decision. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

Moreover, we do not have jurisdiction to consider Cabello-Chavez’s arguments challenging the BIA’s order denying his appeal. The BIA’s denial of an appeal and its denial of a motion to reconsider are two separate final orders, each of which requires its own petition for review. Stone v. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 394,115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). A timely petition for review is a jurisdictional requirement in the absence of which this court lacks jurisdiction to review the decision of the BIA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1); Karimian-Kaklaki v. I.N.S., 997 F.2d 108, 111 (5th Cir. 1993). As Cabello-Chavez did not file a petition for review from the BIA’s order denying his appeal, his petition for review is DENIED.