Ruben Basa Ching v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUBEN BASA CHING,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72806
Agency No. A098-248-346
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
DEC 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-72806
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 of 2 --