### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

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 nati v e a nd c itizen 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 fi n d i n g that he f ailed t o establish changed country conditions for homosexuals in Honduras. An alien, like Funes-Bonilla, may move to reopen his i mmigration proceedings “ [t]o apply or re ap p ly f o r a s ylum or withholding of deportation based U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May29, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-60437 Document: 00512255590 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2013No. 12-60437

on changed circumstan c e s a r i sing in the country of nationality

. . . if such evidence is material and was not available a nd could not have been discovered

or presented a t the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see P anjwani

v. Gonzales , 401 F.3d 626, 631 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 5 )

. T h e evidence s ubmitted by Funes-Bonilla i n connection with his first motion to reopen, however, did not show a change in conditions for homosexuals i n Honduras since the time of his

r e m o v a l proceedings. See In re S-Y-G , 24 I. & N

. Dec. 247, 253 (BIA 2007). Furthermore, Funes-Bonilla f ailed to establish that the evidence he submitted in connection with his s econd motion to r e open was n ot available when he filed his f irst motion to reopen. See Ogbemudia v. I.N.S. , 988 F.2d 595, 599-600 (5th Cir. 1 993); 1003.2(c)(1). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its dis c r e t ion in denying Funes-Bonilla’s motions to reopen and r emand. See Panjwani , 401 F.3d at 631- 33. Funes-Bonill a also contends that the BIA failed to c onsider his evidence of changed conditions and failed to explain the reasons for its d e cision. We will “review the BIA’ s d ecision ‘procedurally’ to ensure that the c o mplaining alien has received full a nd f air consideration of all circumstances that give rise to his or her claims.” Abdel-Masieh v. INS , 7 3 F.3d 5 79, 5 85 (5th Cir. 1 996) (citation omitted). Although the BIA i s not required to “address evidentiary minutiae or write any l e n g t hy 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 r e garding changed country conditions in h is first motion to reopen, the IJ nevertheless correctly concluded that Funes-Bonilla’s evidence failed t o establish changed conditions and (2) even though Funes-Bonilla’s second motion to reopen and evidence were not p roperly before it on a ppeal, his second motion and ev i d e nce, especially th e State Department’s human rights reports, also failed t o establish changed conditions.
2 Case: 12-60437 Document: 00512255590 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2013No. 12-60437

Thus, although the B IA d i d n o t discuss all o f the evidence o f record, we are satisfied that it meaningfully considered Funes-Bonilla’s evidence. See id. Finally, by failing to brief hi s c l a i m s for asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) or the Convention Against Torture i n h is initial appellate brief, Funes-Bonilla has abandoned them. Se e So a djede 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