09-4331-ag
Sherpa v. Holder
BIA
A098 228 768
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New
4 York, on the 23 rd day of September, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 GUIDO CALABRESI,
10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _______________________________________
13
14 KANCHHI MAYA SHERPA A.K.A. KANCHI MAYA,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 09-4331-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, New York,
25 New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;
28 Jennifer J. Keeney, Senior Litigation
29 Counsel; Karen L. Melnik, Trial
30 Attorney, Office of Immigration
31 Litigation, United States Department
1 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
3 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
4 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
5 review is DENIED.
6 Kanchhi Maya Sherpa, a native and citizen of Nepal,
7 seeks review of a September 23, 2009, order of the BIA
8 denying her third motion to reopen. In re Kanchhi Maya
9 Sherpa, No. A098 228 768 (B.I.A. Sept. 23, 2009). We assume
10 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
11 procedural history of this case.
12 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
13 abuse of discretion. Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d
14 Cir. 2005) (per curiam). An alien may only file one motion
15 to reopen and must do so within 90 days of the final
16 administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R.
17 § 1003.2(c)(2). However, there is no time or numerical
18 limitations if the alien establishes materially “changed
19 country conditions arising in the country of nationality.”
20 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) (C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R.
21 § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Here, Sherpa’s third motion to reopen
22 was indisputably untimely and number-barred. The BIA did
23 not abuse its discretion in finding that she failed to
24 establish changed country conditions excusing her untimely
2
1 filing.
2 Contrary to Sherpa’s argument, the BIA properly relied
3 on the immigration judge’s underlying adverse credibility
4 determination to reject her documentary evidence as
5 insufficient to establish changed country conditions. See
6 Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 142, 147-48 (2d Cir.
7 2007) . Indeed, the BIA reasonably applied the doctrine
8 falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, in rejecting Sherpa’s
9 unauthenticated and unreliable affidavits. See Siewe v.
10 Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) . Moreover, the
11 record does not indicate that the BIA failed to consider any
12 of the evidence Sherpa submitted. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S.
13 Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338 (2d Cir. 2006).
14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
15 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
16 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
17 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
18 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
19 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
20 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
21 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
22 FOR THE COURT:
23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3