
    Rafiq RAHIM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-60400
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 26, 2014.
    Mary Nicole Morrison, Esq., Morrison Law Firm, P.C., Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esq., Trial Attorney, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rafiq Rahim, an illegal alien and a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. We review the denial “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir.2005). We will not find an abuse of discretion unless the decision is “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so aberrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Id. at 304 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Rahim contends that the evidence in support of his motion to reopen showed worsening conditions in Pakistan for Shi’a Muslims, and particularly Ismaili Muslims such as Rahim, and that the BIA’s failure to examine that evidence in a serious manner was an abuse of discretion. The BIA’s decision was sufficiently reasoned to permit meaningful review. See Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (5th Cir.1984).

Motions to reopen removal proceedings are disfavored, and the moving party must satisfy a heavy burden. Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 549 (5th Cir.2006). Rahim’s evidence does not show that the BIA abused its discretion. See Zhao, 404 F.3d at 304. The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     