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

No. 11-60875 Summary Calendar

DEBAPRASAD DAS,
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. A028 543 189

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Debaprasad Das petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen. Finding no abuse of discretion, we deny the petition. Das, a citizen and national of India, was charged with entering the United States in 1996 without proper documentation. He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). According to Das, he faced retribution at the hands of an organized crime syndicate run by 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 29 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat thisop inion sho uld not * be publish 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 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-60875 Document: 00512036076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2012No. 11-60875

Dawood Ibrahim because Das can testify against members of the organization in connection with a series of bombings that occurred in Bombay (now Mumbai) in 1993. The immigration judge denied relief, and the BIA affirmed. We denied Das’s petition for review. Das then filed an untimely and numerically barred motion to r e open, asserting that he had eviden c e of changed country conditions relating to an increase in corruption, torture, and police brutality, as w e ll as greater infiltration of the government by Ibrahim’s organization. He also pointed to a
new requirement that Indian nationals seeking to renew passports must attest that they have not applied for or been granted asylum. Ac cording to Das, because he had to disclose his asylum application, he was thre at e n e d by an Indian consular official and now fears torture on his return to India as a result. He also contends that he has spoken out against Ibrahi m and the Indian government and that he has provided information to intelligence officials in the United States. We r eview the denial of a motion to reopen under a “highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303-04 (5th Cir. 2005). Under that standard, the BIA’s ruling will stand, even if this court concl u d e s it is erroneous, “so long as 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.” Id. at 304 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The BIA concluded that Das failed to show any ch ange in circumstances regarding public corruption and Ibrahim’s influence, and that Das did n o t p u t

on evidence that Indian asylum s e e k e r s face torture. Those conclusions find support in the record. Much of the evidence merely provides examples of n ew instances of longstanding and well-documented problems o f t orture and corruption in India, as well as the continuing influence of criminal organizations like Ibrahim’s. Further, Das offered nothing to corroborate his assertions that
2 Case: 11-60875 Document: 00512036076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2012No. 11-60875

the India n gov e r nment is targeting Indian nationals who have applied for asylum overseas. Given the record, we c a n n o t s ay that the BIA abused its discretion. We also reject Das’s contention that the BIA employed an incorrect legal standard in assessing his claim. PETITION DENIED.

3 Case: 11-60875 Document: 00512036076 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/29/2012