
    Ang Bhai SHERPA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-1816.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 1, 2014.
    Julie Mullaney, Mount Kisco, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Francis Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel; Kate D. Balaban, Trial Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, GUIDO CALABRESI and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Ang Bhai Sherpa, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks review of an April 15, 2013, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Ang Bhai Sherpa, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 15, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this 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.” Alt v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The BIA did not abuse its discretion. It denied Sherpa’s timely motion to reopen on the ground that Sherpa’s new evidence would not likely change the outcome of his case. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 168 (2d Cir.2008) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988)). As the BIA concluded, Sherpa’s medical report, while relevant, would not alter the IJ’s dispositive adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); see also Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 234 (2d Cir.2005).

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 34.1(b).  