RUBEN CHING V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 17-72806 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 19 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUBEN BASA CHING, No. Petitioner, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-72806 Agency No. A098-248-346 MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 8, 2022** Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Ruben Basa Ching, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ching’s second motion to reopen as numerically barred and untimely where it was filed more than eight years after the final order of removal, and where Ching has not established that any exception to these limits applies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) (only one motion to reopen allowed), (c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of the final removal order), (c)(7)(C)(ii) (exceptions). In light of this disposition, we do not address Ching’s contentions regarding prima facie eligibility for relief. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). In his opening brief, Ching does not contest, and therefore waives, any challenge to the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Ching’s request to remand this case to the BIA is denied. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-72806

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.