### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60014 Summary Calendar

MOHAMMAD RASHID ABDUL-MAJEED,
Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A097 882 378

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mohammad Rashid Abdul-Majeed, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his m o t i o n s to reopen and to reconsider. Abdul-Majeed posits two issues for review. The first is whether the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion to reopen and remand. The second is whether the BIA ruled on his claim under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and, if it did, wh ether the ruling was rational and based on the evidence in the record. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 10 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-60014 Document: 00511627488 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/10/2011No. 11-60014

A motion to reopen must state new facts to be proved at a h e a ri n g a n d must be supported by “evidentiary material.” 8 CFR § 1003.2(c)(1). Review of

an order denying a motion to remand is distinct from any review of the merits of the underlying order dismissing the a p p e al from the immigration judge’s ruling denying immigration relief. Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995); Kane v. Holder , 581 F.3d 231, 237 n.14 (5 th Cir. 2009). We u s e a “hi ghly def

ere nti al abuse-of-discretion standard” whe n reviewin g the denial of a motion to reopen. Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales , 435 F.3d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Even a decision that we might thin k w r o n g will stand 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.” Zhao v. Gonzales , 404 F

. 3 d 2 9 5 , 304 ( 5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Motions to reopen are disfavored. Altamirano-Lopez , 435 F.3d at 549. In denying the motion to reopen, the BIA determined that Abdul-Majeed had not explained how the new information he submitted affected his claims for relief. Abdul-Majeed disagrees, asserting in conclusory fashion that the new i nf o r m ation he presented to the BIA required that his case be reopened. He argues that the State Department’s country report on Pakistan reveals a series of killings of political workers and shows that hundreds of political workers have vanished “apparently at the hands of law enforcement agencies.” He contends that he is “similarly situated” and thus has a credible fear of future harm. The sections of the country report that Abdul-Majeed cites do not, however, support his proposition that he falls into a particularized group persecuted by or with the consent of P a ki stani authorities. The quoted section concerning deaths in Karachi specifically states that they were “‘the result of interparty clashes’” and does not state that Pakistani authorities used, fostered, or permitted them. And the quoted section about disappearances is concerned with generalized political
2 Case: 11-60014 Document: 00511627488 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/10/2011No. 11-60014

violence; this section of the report does not even mention the Mohajir Quami Movement, a political the group to which Abdul-Majeed claims to belong. In gist, Abdul-Majeed’s “new evidence” is of violence targeted at diverse political groups in Pakistan—violence that was not neces s a rily directed or tolerated by the government. This evidence of “general violence and civil disorder” would offer

no basis for granting Abdul-Majeed asylum, withholding of r e m o v al, or protection under CAT in a reopened case. See Eduard v. Ashcroft , 379 F.3d 182, 190 (5th Cir. 2004); Lara v. Trominski , 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 200 0). Abdul-Majeed maintains that the BIA failed to address his CAT claim, but it is difficult to ascertain what he means, as he does not specify which of his motions is implicated in this claim. To the extent that Abdul-Majeed contends that the BIA did not consider his CAT claim when denying his motion to reopen, the very first sentence of the BIA’s order expressly refutes his contention. To the extent that Abdul-Majeed contends that the BIA failed to consider a CAT claim in a motion to reconsider, he has waived this issue because he has not addressed th e B IA’s determination that he filed no timely motion to reconsider. Se e Chambers v. Mukasey , 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). And to the extent that Abdul-Majeed’s brief may be understood to challenge the BIA’s underlying August 2010 ruling denying his appeal of the IJ’s decision not to grant relief on the merits, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the challenge; Majeed did

n o t f il e a timely petition seeking review of that decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone , 514 U.S. at 405 on); Lara , 216 F.3d at 495. Abdul-Majeed’s petition for review is DENIED.

3 Case: 11-60014 Document: 00511627488 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/10/2011