Dereje Yemane Woldegiorgise, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to reopen the removal proceedings against him. He also moves this court for a stay of removal pending the location of a third, safe country of removal. Woldegiorgise makes the following five arguments before this court: (1) that his *292 2008 conviction no longer qualifies as an aggravated felony due to the suspension of his sentence, (2) that his 2008 conviction is not a crime of violence or domestic violence, (3) that he is eligible for and should be granted asylum, (4) that he should be granted withholding of removal, and (5) that he should be granted relief under the Convention Against Torture.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion for reconsideration under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. See Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496-97 (5th Cir. 2000); Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1141 (5th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, this court must uphold the BIA’s denial of a motion for reconsideration, even if the court “deem[s it] in error, so long as it is not 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.” Osuchukwu, 744 F.2d at 1142.

The issues briefed by Woldegiorgise are legal arguments challenging the validity of the underlying removal order. Woldegiorgise’s brief does not identify or analyze any error related to the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. Because Woldegiorgise’s attorney-prepared brief does not adequately brief the sole issue before this court, he has abandoned it. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. The motion for a stay of removal is also DENIED.