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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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