
    Jose Isabel HERRERA-LAZO, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent
    No. 16-60505 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed August 14, 2017
    Jose Isabel Herrera-Lazo, Pro Se
    Gregory Darrell Mack, Esq., Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Siu Ping Wong, Esq., Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Isabel Herrera-Lazo, a citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen seeking to set aside a 1986 order deporting him in abstentia. We decline to disturb the BIA’s ruling.

“Motions to reopen deportation proceedings are disfavored, and the moving party bears a heavy burden,” Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our authority in this case is circumscribed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(D). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, we conclude that the BIA’s decision must stand because 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.” Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Even liberally construed, Herrera-Lazo’s pro se brief posits at best concluso-ry assertions and points to no record evidence showing that he did not receive notice of his deportation merits hearing or that he is otherwise entitled to reopening. See Matter of Haim, 19 I. & N. Dec. 641, 642 (BIA 1988). Given that Herrera-Lazo’s truncated plea for BIA relief rested on conclusory assertions rather than evidence, the BIA’s denial of relief cannot be said to be arbitrary, capricious, or irrational. See Singh, 436 F.3d at 487.

PETITION 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     