
    Rahim MOMIN, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-60775
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 13, 2014.
    Riddhi Pankaj Desai, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    
      Thankful Townsend Vanderstar, Esq., Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rahim Momin, a native and citizen of Pakistan, has petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen the removal proceedings. The BIA determined that the motion did not meet the statutory requirements for a motion to reopen because the motion was not supported by evidence that materially affected Momin’s eligibility for relief and which was unavailable and could not have been discovered or presented at the removal hearing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(1), 1003.23(b)(3). We review the decision on a motion to reopen under a “highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Waggoner v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 632, 639 (5th Cir.2007).

Momin contends that, in light of the totality of the evidence, he established a prima facie case for adjustment of status. However, he fails to present any argument that expressly, addresses the basis upon which the BIA denied his motion to reopen, namely, that he had not shown that the photograph was material to his application for relief and was not previously available or could not have been discovered or presented at his former hearing. By failing to brief the issue of whether his motion satisfied the statutory requirements for a motion to reopen, which alone is a sufficient basis for denying the motion, see Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 462, 469 (5th Cir.2005), Momin has abandoned any argument that the BIA abused its discretion in determining that he was not entitled to relief on his motion to reopen. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003). Therefore, his 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     