Rafiq Rahim v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-60400 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: JES , Judge: EBC Mandate pull date is 05/19/2014 [13-60400]

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

No. 13-60400
Summary Calendar

FILED
March 26, 2014
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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 discretion 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 (internal 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