Court Opinion

ID: 9905336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 01:00:50.495344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:01.773955
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60185        Document: 00516981385             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/28/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                     ____________                                       Fifth Circuit

                                                                                      FILED
                                      No. 23-60185                            November 28, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                      Clerk

   Fermin Fernando Mosivais-Avalos,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A075 374 915
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Fermin Fernando Mosivais-Avalos, a native and citizen of Mexico,
   petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying his
   motion to reopen.          His motion asserted counsel rendered ineffective
   assistance by failing to:        challenge the termination of his conditional
   permanent resident (CPR) status; and submit documents relevant to another

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60185       Document: 00516981385           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/28/2023

                                     No. 23-60185

   application for adjustment of status. The BIA denied his motion after
   concluding Mosivais had not: submitted previously unavailable evidence;
   shown prima-facie eligibility for adjustment of status; or complied with the
   requisite procedural requirements.
          Motions to reopen are “disfavored”. Nguhlefeh Njilefac v. Garland,
   992 F.3d 362, 365 n.3 (5th Cir. 2021). Our court reviews the BIA’s denial
   “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard”. Ovalles v. Rosen,
   984 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). The BIA’s decision
   will not be disturbed unless it is “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”.
   Nguhlefeh Njilefac, 992 F.3d at 365 (citation omitted).
          Mosivais fails to brief, and therefore abandons, his challenges to the
   BIA’s conclusions that he failed to submit previously unavailable evidence
   and had not shown prima-facie eligibility. See Lopez-Perez v. Garland, 35 F.4th
   953, 957 n.1 (5th Cir. 2022) (forfeiting specific contentions on appeal by not
   briefing); Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 471–73 (BIA 1992) (failing to
   provide previously unavailable evidence is grounds for denial); Parada-
   Orellana v. Garland, 21 F.4th 887, 893 (5th Cir. 2022) (failing to make prima-
   facia showing of relief is grounds for denial).
          His failure to show prima-facie eligibility is dispositive for his
   adjustment-of-status claim. See Lopez-Perez, 35 F.4th at 957 n.1; Parada-
   Orellana, 21 F.4th at 893. He also does not show any error in the BIA’s
   concluding he failed to comply with the requisite procedural requirements.
   See Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988) (requiring motion
   to “reflect whether a complaint” was filed regarding representation, “and if
   not, why not”).

                                          2
Case: 23-60185     Document: 00516981385          Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/28/2023

                                   No. 23-60185

          Because failure to comply with Lozada is sufficient to uphold the
   BIA’s conclusion concerning his CPR claim, our court need not consider
   Mosivais’ remaining contentions. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25
   (1976) (“[C]ourts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues
   the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”); Rodriguez-
   Manzano v. Holder, 666 F.3d 948, 953 (5th Cir. 2012) (affirming BIA’s
   denying motion to reopen).
          DENIED.

                                         3