Rafiq Rahim v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Case: 13-60400 Document: 00512574128 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 13-60400 March 26, 2014 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk RAFIQ RAHIM, Petitioner, versus ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A 078 551 881 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rafiq Rahim, an illegal alien and a native and citizen of Pakistan, * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 13-60400 Document: 00512574128 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2014 No. 13-60400 petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. We review the denial “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). We will not find an abuse of dis- cretion unless the decision is “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so aberrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Id. at 304 (inter- nal quotation marks and citation omitted). Rahim contends that the evidence in support of his motion to reopen showed worsening conditions in Pakistan for Shi’a Muslims, and particularly Ismaili Muslims such as Rahim, and that the BIA’s failure to examine that evidence in a serious manner was an abuse of discretion. The BIA’s decision was sufficiently reasoned to permit meaningful review. See Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142−43 (5th Cir. 1984). Motions to reopen removal proceedings are disfavored, and the moving party must satisfy a heavy burden. Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 2006). Rahim’s evidence does not show that the BIA abused its discretion. See Zhao, 404 F.3d at 304. The petition for review is DENIED. 2