United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60510

Summary Calendar

____________

Haralambos Panagiotis Karvounis, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A030 867 122

______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Haralambos Panagiotis Karvounis, a native and citizen of Greece, 

petitions this court for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings 

for the purpose of seeking cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). 

He presents three issues for the court’s review: (1) whether the BIA engaged 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 12, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60510 Document: 33-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2024
in impermissible factfinding; (2) whether the BIA categorically held that time 

spent outside of the United States and abandonment of lawful permanent 

residence (LPR) status were significant negative equities, contrary to law; 

and (3) whether the BIA failed to apply the proper standard of review and 

consider that DHS had already “stipulated to discretion.”

Because Karvounis sought discretionary relief and was previously 

convicted of possession of cocaine, our jurisdiction is limited to 

constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), 

(iv) & (C); see also Perez v. Garland, 67 F.4th 254, 257-58 (5th Cir. 2023); 

Diaz v. Sessions, 894 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, we cannot 

review the BIA’s pure factual findings or discretionary determinations. See 

Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 337-39(2022); Nastase v. Barr, 964 F.3d 313, 

319-20 (5th Cir. 2020). Moreover, a petitioner “may not—merely by 

“phras[ing] his argument in legal terms”—“use[ ] those terms to cloak a 

request for review of the BIA’s discretionary decision, which is not a question 

of law.” Nastase, 964 F.3d at 319 (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). We review de novo the issue of whether we have jurisdiction to 

consider the BIA’s decision, as well as issues concerning constitutional 

claims and questions of law. Rodriguez v. Holder, 705 F.3d 207, 210 (5th Cir. 

2013).

Whether the BIA failed to abide by its own regulations presents an 

issue of law and is therefore reviewable. See Jean v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 392, 

395–96 (5th Cir. 2006). We have held that 8 U.S.C. § 1003.1(d)(3) applies 

only to the BIA’s disposition of appeals and not to motions to reopen filed 

with the BIA, which must state “the new facts that [would] be proven at a 

hearing to be held if the motion is granted.” 8 U.S.C. § 1003.2(c)(1); see 

Mata v. Sessions, 678 F. App’x 198, 200 (5th Cir. 2017); de Lezama v. Holder, 

577 F. App’x 314, 314-15 (5th Cir. 2014). Although Mata and de Lezama are 

unpublished, they are persuasive. See Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 & 

Case: 23-60510 Document: 33-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2024
n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4). Karvounis’s argument that

the BIA applied a categorical determination that (1) the time he spent outside 

the United States and (2) his abandonment of LPR status constituted 

significant negative equities, which contravened its legal obligation to decide 

his case individually is reviewable, see § 1252(a)(2)(D), but the BIA’s opinion 

demonstrates that it considered his individual circumstances.

Whether the BIA erred as a matter of law by requiring him to satisfy a 

higher standard than demonstrating a “‘reasonable likelihood’ that the relief 

sought would be granted at the reopened hearing,” Matter of S- V-, 22 I. & 

N. Dec. 1306 (BIA 2000), also is reviewable. See Morales v. Garland, 27 F.4th 

370, 371-72 (5th Cir. 2022); Parada-Orellano v. Garland, 21 F.4th 887, 893-

944 (5th Cir. 2022). This court may make reasonable inferences as to the 

bases for the BIA’s judgments. See Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 

462, 468 (5th Cir. 2005).

As in Parada-Orellana, 21 F.4th at 894, Karvounis cites no language 

suggesting that the BIA failed to apply the proper standard. Further, the BIA 

cited Matter of C- V- T-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 7, 11 (BIA 1998), which set forth the 

applicable analysis, and Parada-Orellana, 21 F.4th at 894, which set forth the 

reasonable probability standard and held that the BIA need not expound on 

the proper standard. Moreover, we have long recognized that the reasonable 

probability standard is subsumed in the prima facie standard. See Marcello v. 

I.N.S., 694 F.2d 1033, 1035 (5th Cir. 1983). Finally, the Respondent did not 

stipulate that Karvounis was entitled to cancellation of removal as a matter 

of discretion. We therefore reasonably infer that the BIA applied the correct 

standard, notwithstanding the brevity of its opinion. See Manzano-Garcia, 

413 F.3d at 468; see also Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 977 (5th Cir. 2023).

Karvounis also proffers several subsidiary arguments that amount to 

mere disagreements with the BIA’s factual findings and discretionary 

Case: 23-60510 Document: 33-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/12/2024
determinations. They are clearly unreviewable and must be dismissed. See 

Nastase, 964 F.3d at 319-20; see also Tibakweitra v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 905, 

910-11 (5th Cir. 2021). Finally, we decline to consider his arguments raised 

for the first time in his reply brief and in footnotes. See Smith v. Sch. Bd. of 

Concordia Par., 88 F.4th 588, 596 n.32 (5th Cir. 2023); United States v. 

Peterson, 977 F.3d 381, 394 n.5 (5th Cir. 2020).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED in part and 

DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction.

Case: 23-60510 Document: 33-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/12/2024