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,

on the 1st 4 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