Sherpa v. Holder

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