Ruben Basa Ching v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUBEN BASA CHING,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73007
Agency No. A098-248-346
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: FISHER, CALLAHAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Ruben Basa Ching, a native of the Philippines, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
FILED
MAR 29 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history,1
we restate them here only as necessary to explain our decision.
-2-
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(1), and we deny
the petition for review.1
1. An asylum applicant has the burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence that he has filed his asylum application within one year of his
arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158; 8 C.F.R. § 208.4. An applicant
may be excused from meeting the one-year deadline if he can show that he has
experienced “changed” or “extraordinary” circumstances. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(2), (4)–(5). “[T]o qualify as an exception to
the one-year rule, Petitioner must prove that the circumstances were not
intentionally created by the alien through his or her own action or inaction.”
Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 C.F.R. §
208.4(a)(5)). Here, the IJ correctly held that the denial of Ching’s adjustment of
status application did not constitute a “changed circumstance” or “extraordinary
circumstance” because the application was fraudulent and of his own doing. In any
event, it did not prevent him from filing a timely asylum application.
2. In order for this court to reverse the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination, the petitioner must provide evidence that compels a contrary result.
See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, the IJ

-- 2 of 3 --

The Ninth Circuit has held that where an applicant is not credible, he may2
still qualify for CAT protection if he can provide reports that would compel a
conclusion that he is more likely than not to be tortured if removed. See Shrestha,
590 F.3d at 1048–49. Ching has failed to provide reports that compel such a
conclusion.
-3-
reasonably found that Ching was not credible because he filed a fraudulent
adjustment of status application, gave inconsistent testimony, and failed to provide
sufficient detail about the alleged persecution that he suffered. These conclusions
meet the standards set forth by the REAL ID Act and our cases for adverse
credibility determinations. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C),
1229a(c)(4)(C); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1040. Thus, the IJ reasonably found that
Ching had failed to present a credible claim for asylum, withholding of removal,
and CAT protection.2
The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --