09 -4 33 1- ag

Sherp a v . Holder BIA A098 228 768 

### UNITE D STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY ORDE R

RUL IN GS B Y SUMMAR Y ORDE R DO N OT H AVE PR EC ED EN TI AL E FF EC T. C IT AT IO N TO AS UMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FE DE RAL 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 CI TI NG 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 Se co nd Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New 4 York, on the 23 day of September, two thousand ten. rd 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 F O R P E T I T I O N E R : Khagendra Gharti- Ch he tr y, Ne w 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 Attorn ey, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States Department2 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 1 0 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 1 1 procedural history of this case. 1 2 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 1 3 abuse of discretion. Kaur v. BIA , 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d 1 4 Cir. 2005) (per curiam). An alien may only file one motion 1 5 to reopen and must do so within 90 days of the final 1 6 administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. 1 7 § 1003.2(c)(2). However, there is no time or numerical 1 8 limitations if the alien establishes materially “changed 1 9 country conditions arising in the country of nationality.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) 2 0 (C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. 2 1 § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Here, Sherpa’s third motion to reopen 2 2 was indisputably untimely and number-barred. The BIA did 2 3 not abuse its discretion in finding that she failed to 2 4 establish changed country conditions excusing her untimely3 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. 2007) 7 . 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. Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) 1 0 . Moreover, the 1 1 record does not indicate that the BIA failed to consider any 1 2 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).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 14 1 5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 1 6 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 1 7 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 8 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 1 9 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 2 0 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 2 1 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 2 2 FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 23