IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60802

Summary Calendar

ALFREDO ALEXANDER BENITES-FERNANDES,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A200 683 747

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Alfredo Alexander Benites-Fernandes, a native and citizen of Honduras, 

seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming 

the denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of his motion to reopen removal 

proceedings. Alleging that he did not receive notice of the hearing at which he 

was ordered removed in absentia, Benites-Fernandes contends that the denial 

of his motion constitutes reversible error. In addition, he asserts in a single 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 6, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60802 Document: 00514186798 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2017
No. 16-60802

2

sentence that the IJ erred in ruling that he had not made a prima facie showing 

of his entitlement to withholding of removal and in not permitting him to 

pursue his claim. He has not challenged the refusal by the IJ and BIA to sua 

sponte reopen the proceedings, and any such argument is abandoned. See

Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

With respect to the denial of the motion to reopen based on a lack of 

notice, we review such a ruling under “a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). We 

review questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. 

Id.

Benites-Fernandes has not shown that the IJ and BIA abused their 

discretion in denying his motion to reopen. See id. The immigration courts 

correctly applied the slight presumption of delivery applicable to notices sent 

via regular mail. See Matter of M-R-A-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 665, 672-73 (BIA 2008). 

In his affidavit, the only evidence presented in support of his assertion of nonreceipt, Benites-Fernandes asserted that he had failed to receive the notice 

because his “sponsor” had died. As the IJ and BIA found, the record reflected 

that the notice of hearing was sent to the address provided by BenitesFernandes to immigration officials, which was not the same address as that 

listed for his “sponsor.” Benites-Fernandes does not explain how his 

“sponsor’s” death would affect a notice sent to an address provided by BenitesFernandes himself, which was not that of the “sponsor.” In addition, although 

Benites-Fernandes asserted that his “sponsor” died in 2011, the notice of 

hearing was sent by regular mail in November 2010. The evidence presented 

does not compel a conclusion that Benites-Fernandes did not receive the notice 

of hearing. See Ojeda-Calderon v. Holder, 726 F.3d 669, 672-73 (5th Cir. 2013).

 Case: 16-60802 Document: 00514186798 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2017
No. 16-60802

3

As for Benites-Fernandes’s challenge to the denial of his request for 

withholding of removal, his single sentence within the brief, with no reasons 

for his assertion of error and no citations to the record or to legal authorities, 

is inadequately briefed. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Moreover, although 

Benites-Fernandes asserts that the IJ erred in her denial of relief, the BIA 

concluded that Benites-Fernandes was not entitled to withholding of removal 

on different grounds than those found by the IJ; thus, we would not review the 

IJ’s ruling on this issue. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Even if we were to construe Benites-Fernandes’s brief as challenging the BIA’s 

adverse ruling, he would not be entitled to relief. The time limitations on filing 

a motion to reopen do not apply if the reason for the motion is to seek

immigration relief based on a change in the conditions of the country of 

nationality, assuming that the evidence was material and was not available or 

discoverable at the time of the previous proceeding. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Benites-Fernandes’s application for relief, which asserted 

only that his family members in Honduras had faced extortion and gang 

threats, resulting in death and injury to some individuals, did not compare the 

current conditions to those existing at the time that the original removal 

hearing was scheduled; he therefore has not shown a material change in 

country conditions. See Ramos-Lopez v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 1024, 1026 (5th Cir. 

2016). As he has not made a prima facie case for relief, the BIA was within its 

discretion to deny the motion to reopen. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 

464, 471 (BIA 1992); accord INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). 

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 16-60802 Document: 00514186798 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/06/2017