IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-60437

Summary Calendar

OLVIN ALEXIS FUNES-BONILLA,

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. A078 511 995

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Olvin Alexis Funes-Bonilla, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions

this court for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that

denied his motions to reopen and remand his removal proceedings. FunesBonilla maintains that the BIA erred in finding that he failed to establish

changed country conditions for homosexuals in Honduras. 

An alien, like Funes-Bonilla, may move to reopen his immigration

proceedings “[t]o apply or reapply for asylum or withholding of deportation based

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 29, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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: 12-60437 Document: 00512255590 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2013
No. 12-60437

on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality . . . if such

evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered

or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see Panjwani

v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 631 (5th Cir. 2005). The evidence submitted by

Funes-Bonilla in connection with his first motion to reopen, however, did not

show a change in conditions for homosexuals in Honduras since the time of his

removal proceedings. See In re S-Y-G, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007). 

Furthermore, Funes-Bonilla failed to establish that the evidence he submitted

in connection with his second motion to reopen was not available when he filed

his first motion to reopen. See Ogbemudia v. I.N.S., 988 F.2d 595, 599-600 (5th

Cir. 1993); 1003.2(c)(1). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying

Funes-Bonilla’s motions to reopen and remand. See Panjwani, 401 F.3d at 631-

33. 

Funes-Bonilla also contends that the BIA failed to consider his evidence

of changed conditions and failed to explain the reasons for its decision. We will

“review the BIA’s decision ‘procedurally’ to ensure that the complaining alien

has received full and fair consideration of all circumstances that give rise to his

or her claims.” Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation

omitted). Although the BIA is not required to “address evidentiary minutiae or

write any lengthy exegesis, its decision must reflect meaningful consideration

of the relevant substantial evidence supporting the alien’s claims.” Id. (internal

citation omitted).

Our review of the record indicates that the BIA noted that (1) even though

Funes-Bonilla failed to present an argument regarding changed country

conditions in his first motion to reopen, the IJ nevertheless correctly concluded

that Funes-Bonilla’s evidence failed to establish changed conditions and (2) even

though Funes-Bonilla’s second motion to reopen and evidence were not properly

before it on appeal, his second motion and evidence, especially the State

Department’s human rights reports, also failed to establish changed conditions. 

2

 Case: 12-60437 Document: 00512255590 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2013
No. 12-60437

Thus, although the BIA did not discuss all of the evidence of record, we are

satisfied that it meaningfully considered Funes-Bonilla’s evidence. See id. 

Finally, by failing to brief his claims for asylum and withholding of

removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) or the Convention Against Torture in his

initial appellate brief, Funes-Bonilla has abandoned them. See Soadjede v.

Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d

346, 360 (5th Cir. 2010). 

PETITION DENIED.

3

 Case: 12-60437 Document: 00512255590 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/29/2013