MEMORANDUM **

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 Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 *679 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 dung'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 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.