Case: 13-60743 Document: 00512710326 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-60743
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 24, 2014
PARESH BHAI RABARI,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Petitioner
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A205 196 047
Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Petitioner Paresh Bhai Rabari petitions for review of the order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed his appeal from the order
of the immigration judge (IJ) denying as untimely his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. Motions to reopen are disfavored, and the moving party must
carry a heavy burden. Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 549 (5th
Cir. 2006). The denial of such a motion is reviewed “under a highly deferential
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-60743 Document: 00512710326 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2014
No. 13-60743
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
A motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the date on which the
final administrative decision is issued. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). An alien
is not bound by this time limit, however, if the motion is made for purposes of
applying for asylum or for withholding of removal “based on changed country
conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal
has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would
not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.”
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
Rabari does not contest that he failed to file his motion within the 90-
day time limit. See § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Although he cites new evidence not
contained in the administrative record to show a change of country conditions
in India, we may not consider this evidence. See Hernandez-Ortez v. Holder,
741 F.3d 644, 647 (5th Cir. 2014). To the extent that Rabari has not otherwise
abandoned his appeal through his failure to brief his arguments adequately,
see Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003), his conclusonal
assertions that his motion to reopen should have been granted are wholly
insufficient to show that the BIA abused its discretion. See Altamirano-Lopez,
435 F.3d at 549. His petition for review is DENIED.
2