13-1816
Sherpa v. Holder
BIA
A089 198 463
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 1st day of October, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 ANG BHAI SHERPA,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-1816
17 NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Julie Mullaney, Mount Kisco, New
25 York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Francis Fraser, Senior
29 Litigation Counsel; Kate D. Balaban,
1 Trial Attorney; Office of
2 Immigration Litigation, United
3 States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, D.C.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Ang Bhai Sherpa, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks
11 review of an April 15, 2013, decision of the BIA denying his
12 motion to reopen. In re Ang Bhai Sherpa, No. A089 198 463
13 (B.I.A. Apr. 15, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity
14 with the underlying facts and procedural history of this
15 case.
16 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
17 abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s
18 admonition that such motions are “disfavored.” Ali v.
19 Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (quotation marks
20 and citation omitted). The BIA did not abuse its
21 discretion. It denied Sherpa’s timely motion to reopen on
22 the ground that Sherpa’s new evidence would not likely
23 change the outcome of his case. See 8 U.S.C.
24 § 1229a(c)(7)(B); see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546
25 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S.
2
1 94, 104-05 (1988)). As the BIA concluded, Sherpa’s medical
2 report, while relevant, would not alter the IJ’s dispositive
3 adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C.
4 § 1229a(c)(7)(B); see also Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 234
5 (2d Cir. 2005).
6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
7 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
8 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
9 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
10 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
11 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
12 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
13 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
16
17
18
3