Case Name: Abdul Latif ALAM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-18
Citations: 357 F. App'x 353
Docket Number: No. 08-5380-ag
Parties: Abdul Latif ALAM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, RALPH K. WINTER and REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 353–355

Head Matter:
Abdul Latif ALAM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 08-5380-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 18, 2009.
Richard W. Chen, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director; Jesse L. Busen, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, RALPH K. WINTER and REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Abdul Latif Alam, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of the October 8, 2008 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Abdul Latif Alam, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 8, 2008). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, mindful of the Supreme Court's admonition that such motions are "disfavored." Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006) (citing INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992)). Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Alam's motion to reopen as untimely. An alien seeking to reopen proceedings must file his motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no dispute that Alam's May 2008 motion was untimely because the BIA issued a final order of removal in December 2002. Moreover, the BIA properly found that Alam's motion did not qualify for an exception to the time limitation based on his assertion of changed country conditions nt Pakistan. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (3) (ii).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alam's motion to reopen based on his failure in the reopening motion to rebut the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility determination in the original removal decision. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 234 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam); see also Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir.2007) (relying on the doctrine falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to conclude that the agency may decline to credit documentary evidence submitted with a motion to reopen by an alien who was found not credible in the underlying proceeding) (citing Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir.2007)). Specifically, to the extent the IJ had previously found Alam not credible as to his alleged involvement in the MQM party, and the BIA had affirmed that decision, the BIA was under no obligation to credit Alam's new assertions in his motion to reopen, which were again based on his involvement with MQM. See Kaur, 413 F.3d at 234. The BIA further observed that the sworn affidavit Alam submitted with his motion conflicted with an earlier motion to reopen with regard to key dates, including the year he joined MQM and the year his father was killed.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
. We are without jurisdiction to consider Alam's challenge to that original determination itself. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 265 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.2001).