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.**  **At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 1 st** **day of October, two thousand fourteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 7 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 Circuit Judges **.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **ANG BHAI SHERPA,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 13-1816** 16 **NAC** 17 18 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent **.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER: Julie Mullaney, Mount Kisco, New** 24 **York.** 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 27 **General; Francis Fraser, Senior** 28 **Litigation Counsel; Kate D. Balaban,** 29**Trial Attorney; Office of** 1 **Immigration Litigation, United** 2 **States Department of Justice,** 3 **Washington, D.C.** 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Ang Bhai Sherpa, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks 10 review of an April 15, 2013, decision of the BIA denying his 11 motion to reopen. In re Ang Bhai Sherpa , No. A089 198 463 12 (B.I.A. Apr. 15, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity 13 with the underlying facts and procedural history of this 14

case. 15 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for 16 abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court’s 17 admonition that such motions are “disfavored.” Ali v. 18 Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (quotation marks 19 and citation omitted). The BIA did not abuse its 20 discretion. It denied Sherpa’s timely motion to reopen on 21 the ground that Sherpa’s new evidence would not likely 22 change the outcome of his case. See 8 U.S.C. 23 § 1229a(c)(7)(B);see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 24 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing INS v. Abudu , 485 U.S. 25

294, 104-05 (1988)). As the BIA concluded, Sherpa’s medical 1 report, while relevant, would not alter the IJ’s dispositive 2 adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1229a(c)(7)(B);see also Kaur v. BIA , 413 F.3d 232, 234 4 (2d Cir. 2005). 5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 7 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 8 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 9 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 10 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 11 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 12 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 13
FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 15 16 17 18

3