Case: 19-60451 Document: 00515365540 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 19-60451 FILED March 31, 2020 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MALIK AKBAR BHAI, also known as Malik Akbarbhai Virani, also known as Malik Akbar-Bhai Virani, also known as Malik Abbar-Bhai Virani; SHAMA MALIK, also known as Shama Malik Virani, Petitioners v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A076 652 945 BIA No. A076 643 946 Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Malik Akbar Bhai and Shama Malik, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen their removal proceedings and an order denying reconsideration. Although they sought reopening on several grounds, in their * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-60451 Document: 00515365540 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2020 No. 19-60451 petition for review they challenge only the determinations that they had not demonstrated material changed country conditions and that their allegedly defective Notices to Appear did not deprive the immigration judge of jurisdiction. We review the denial of a motion to reopen under a “highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Nunez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 499, 505 (5th Cir. 2018). We will affirm the BIA’s decision if it “is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The denial of a motion for reconsideration also is reviewed “under a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Le v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 98, 104 (5th Cir. 2016). Relying primarily on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), the petitioners first argue that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction because their Notices to Appear were not valid charging documents. We recently rejected similar arguments in Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019) (No. 19-779). Despite the petitioners’ arguments that Pierre-Paul was wrongly decided, it remains binding. See United States v. Ruiz, 180 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir. 1999). Next, we note that an alien has a “heavy burden” to demonstrate changed country conditions for purposes of a motion to reopen. Nunez, 882 F.3d at 508. This requires “making a meaningful comparison between the conditions at the time of the removal hearing and the conditions at the time the alien filed her motion to reopen.” Id. Rather than directly challenging the BIA’s determination, the petitioners instead argue that it made a number of legal errors, such as misconstruing and misapplying the standards for demonstrating changed 2 Case: 19-60451 Document: ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals