FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERLI GUNCORO; ASWANTO, No. 10-70958
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A096-066-470
A096-066-471
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Serli Guncoro, lead petitioner, and Aswanto, natives and citizens of
Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider,
*
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).
Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s April 29, 2008, order vacating an
immigration judge’s grant of asylum, because Guncoro failed to timely petition
this court for review of that decision. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th
Cir. 2003).
The BIA was within its discretion in denying the November 17, 2008,
motion to reconsider on the ground that the motion failed to identify any error of
fact or law in the BIA’s April 29, 2008, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
We reject Guncoro’s contention that the case should be remanded in light of
Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2010). The BIA analyzed
Guncoro’s claims of persecution as an ethnic Chinese Indonesian under the
disfavored group analysis, as set forth in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922 (9th Cir.
2004), and Guncoro does not now argue–nor did she argue to the agency–that she
experienced any individualized risk due to her Christianity.
Guncoro contends the BIA erred in denying her applications for withholding
of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture without allowing her
an opportunity to brief the issues. Contrary to Guncoro’s contention, the
proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [she] was prevented from
2 10-70958
reasonably presenting [her] case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.
2000) (citation omitted). Moreover, Guncoro failed to demonstrate that additional
development of the record may have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See
id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 10-70958