### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 60451 Summary Calendar

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 , Petitioner s

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition s 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: *
M alik A kbar B hai and S hama M alik , n atives 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 5 TH C IR

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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 31, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-60451 Document: 00515365540 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2020N o. 19

- 60451

2 petition for review they challenge only the determinations that they had not demonstrate d material changed country conditions and that their allegedly defective N otices to A ppear 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 percep tible 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). Relyin g primarily on Pereira v. Sessions , 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) , the petitioners first argue that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction because their Notice s to Appear w ere not valid charging document s . We recently rejected similar arguments in Pierre

- Paul v. Barr , 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 1 6 , 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 st andards for demonstrating changed Case: 19-60451 Document: 00515365540 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2020N o. 19

- 60451

3 country conditions, mischaracterizing and misconstruing some of their specific claims, and distorting and arbitrarily disregarding crucial evidence. After reviewing the record and the BIA’s decision, we conclude that the petitioners “received full and fair consideration of all circumstances that give rise ” to their claims. Ghotra v. Whitaker , 912 F.3d 284, 290 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

. In addition, a lthough the BIA did not address all evidence in the record, we conclude that the BIA’s decision “reflect [ s ] meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting the alien’s claims , ” Abdel

- Masieh v. INS , 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996) , and explains it s decision “ in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted , ” Ghotra , 912 F.3d at 290 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). W e now turn to whether the BIA ’s denial of reopening was an abuse of its discretion. See Nunez , 882 F.3d at 505. As the BIA recognized, petitioners presented evidence of deteriorating conditions for Muslims in India, but it concluded th at they failed to show a material change in country conditions. Becaus e the BIA’s decision was not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or so irrational that it was arbitrary, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to reopen. See Nunez , 882 F.3d at 505 . Therefore, the petition for review from the denial of the motion to reopen is DENIED. Finally, the petitioners filed a separate petition for review from the BIA’s denial of their motion for reconsideration. Because the motion to reconsider raised many of the same issues already discussed, and because we conclude that none of the other issues raised show an abuse of discretion , we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for Case: 19-60451 Document: 00515365540 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2020N o. 19

- 60451

4 reconsideration

. See Le , 819 F.3d at 104. Therefore, the petition for review from the denial of reconsideration also is DENIED. Case: 19-60451 Document: 00515365540 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/31/2020