United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60185

Summary Calendar

____________

Fermin Fernando Mosivais-Avalos, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A075 374 915

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Fermin Fernando Mosivais-Avalos, a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying his 

motion to reopen. His motion asserted counsel rendered ineffective 

assistance by failing to: challenge the termination of his conditional 

permanent resident (CPR) status; and submit documents relevant to another

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 28, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60185 Document: 00516981385 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2023
No. 23-60185

2

application for adjustment of status. The BIA denied his motion after 

concluding Mosivais had not: submitted previously unavailable evidence; 

shown prima-facie eligibility for adjustment of status; or complied with the 

requisite procedural requirements. 

Motions to reopen are “disfavored”. Nguhlefeh Njilefac v. Garland, 

992 F.3d 362, 365 n.3 (5th Cir. 2021). Our court reviews the BIA’s denial 

“under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard”. Ovalles v. Rosen, 

984 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). The BIA’s decision 

will not be disturbed unless it is “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”. 

Nguhlefeh Njilefac, 992 F.3d at 365 (citation omitted). 

Mosivais fails to brief, and therefore abandons, his challenges to the 

BIA’s conclusions that he failed to submit previously unavailable evidence 

and had not shown prima-facie eligibility. See Lopez-Perez v. Garland, 35 F.4th 

953, 957 n.1 (5th Cir. 2022) (forfeiting specific contentions on appeal by not 

briefing); Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 471–73 (BIA 1992) (failing to 

provide previously unavailable evidence is grounds for denial); ParadaOrellana v. Garland, 21 F.4th 887, 893 (5th Cir. 2022) (failing to make primafacia showing of relief is grounds for denial).

His failure to show prima-facie eligibility is dispositive for his 

adjustment-of-status claim. See Lopez-Perez, 35 F.4th at 957 n.1; ParadaOrellana, 21 F.4th at 893. He also does not show any error in the BIA’s 

concluding he failed to comply with the requisite procedural requirements. 

See Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988) (requiring motion 

to “reflect whether a complaint” was filed regarding representation, “and if 

not, why not”).

Case: 23-60185 Document: 00516981385 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2023
No. 23-60185

3

Because failure to comply with Lozada is sufficient to uphold the 

BIA’s conclusion concerning his CPR claim, our court need not consider 

Mosivais’ remaining contentions. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 

(1976) (“[C]ourts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 

the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”); RodriguezManzano v. Holder, 666 F.3d 948, 953 (5th Cir. 2012) (affirming BIA’s 

denying motion to reopen). 

DENIED. 

Case: 23-60185 Document: 00516981385 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/28/2023