FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL SISWANTO, No. 10-71998
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-019-887
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013 **
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Michael Siswanto, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
*
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).
of discretion a motion to reconsider. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th
Cir. 2002). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Siswanto’s contentions related to asylum and
equitable tolling of the one-year filing requirement because he failed to raise them
to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny
Siswanto’s motion to take judicial notice of the 2010 U.S. Department of State
International Religious Freedom Report for Indonesia and do not consider it. See
Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is
limited to the administrative record).
The BIA found Siswanto failed to make a showing of an individualized risk
of persecution that would meet the more likely than not standard for withholding of
removal, and denied his motion to reconsider. The BIA did not abuse its discretion
in denying Siswanto’s motion. See Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791
(9th Cir. 2005) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider should not be disturbed
unless the BIA acted “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”); Halim v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner failed to demonstrate
sufficient evidence of individualized risk of harm under a disfavored group
analysis to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution); Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal
2 10-71998
will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence
to prevail than would an asylum applicant”). We reject Siswanto’s requests that
the court reconsider its stance regarding a pattern or practice of persecution or
require the BIA to grant his motion to reconsider on this basis.
We grant Siswanto’s motion to accept his late-filed reply brief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 10-71998