RUBEN CHING V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-72612 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED DEC 14 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUBEN BASA CHING, No. 13-72612 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-248-346 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2015** Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Ruben Basa Ching, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). discretion the denial of the motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. Though the BIA was mistaken when it found that Ching did not file an asylum application with his motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ching’s motion where it separately found the motion untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and found Ching failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in the Philippines to qualify for a regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (stating the hurdles a petitioner must clear in order to prevail on a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions). We reject Ching’s contention that the time limitation on motions to reopen does not apply to his motion. We do not reach any challenges Ching raises to the agency’s underlying credibility finding because they were addressed by this court in Ching v. Holder, No. 08-73007, 514 Fed. Appx. 678 (9th Cir. March 12, 2013). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-72612

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.