
    Sher Lakpa SHERPA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    15-661
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    August 16, 2016
    FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Ghar-ti-Chhetry, New York, New York.
    FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Julie M. Iversen, Senior Litigation Counsel; Jeffrey R. Meyer, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
    
      PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Sher Lakpa Sherpa, a native and citizen of Nepal, seeks review of a February 12, 2015, BIA decision denying his motion to reopen. In re Sher Lakpa Sherpa, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 12, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We review the BLA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, “mindful that motions to reopen ‘are disfavored.’ ” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322-23, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992)). An alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision is rendered. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). This time limitation may be excused if the motion to reopen is made to apply or reapply for relief “based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); accord 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Irrespective of whether this exception applies, the motion “must be accompanied by the appropriate application for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).

Sherpa’s 2014 motion to reopen was untimely. It sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on changed conditions in his native Nepal, but did not include a new application for relief. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by requiring a new application. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see Lin Xing Jiang v. Holder, 639 F.3d 751, 757 (7th Cir. 2011); Palma-Mazariegos v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 144, 147 (1st Cir. 2007); Waggoner v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 632, 639 (5th Cir. 2007).

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).  