-
15-661 Sherpa v. Lynch BIA A087 774 371 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 TO 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 16th day of August, two thousand sixteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 PETER W. HALL, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SHER LAKPA SHERPA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 15-661 17 NAC 18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, 24 New York, New York. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 27 Assistant Attorney General; Julie M. 28 Iversen, Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Jeffrey R. Meyer, Attorney, Office 30 of Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 Washington, D.C. 33 34 35 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Sher Lakpa Sherpa, a native and citizen of 6 Nepal, seeks review of a February 12, 2015, BIA decision denying 7 his motion to reopen. In re Sher Lakpa Sherpa, No. A087 774 8 371 (B.I.A. Feb. 12, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity 9 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 10 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse 11 of discretion, “mindful that motions to reopen ‘are 12 disfavored.’” Ali v. Gonzales,
448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) 13 (quoting INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 322-23 (1992)). An alien 14 seeking to reopen proceedings may file one motion to reopen no 15 later than 90 days after the final administrative decision is 16 rendered. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. 17 § 1003.2(c)(2). This time limitation may be excused if the 18 motion to reopen is made to apply or reapply for relief “based 19 on changed country conditions arising in the country of 20 nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, 21 if such evidence is material and was not available and would 22 not have been discovered or presented at the previous 2 1 proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); accord 8 C.F.R. 2 § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Irrespective of whether this exception 3 applies, the motion “must be accompanied by the appropriate 4 application for relief.”
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). 5 Sherpa’s 2014 motion to reopen was untimely. It sought 6 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on changed 7 conditions in his native Nepal, but did not include a new 8 application for relief. The BIA did not abuse its discretion 9 by requiring a new application.
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see 10 Lin Xing Jiang v. Holder,
639 F.3d 751, 757 (7th Cir. 2011); 11 Palma-Mazariegos v. Keisler,
504 F.3d 144, 147 (1st Cir. 2007); 12 Waggoner v. Gonzales,
488 F.3d 632, 639 (5th Cir. 2007). 13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 14 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 15 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 16 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 17 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 18 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 19 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 20 34.1(b). 21 FOR THE COURT: 22 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 15-661
Citation Numbers: 668 F. App'x 6
Judges: Sack, Wesley, Hall
Filed Date: 8/16/2016
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/6/2024