FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 22 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHIRLEY GRACE KESAULYA; et al., No. 10-72416
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A097-614-139
A097-614-140
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Shirley Grace Kesaulya and her son, 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 BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider. Cano-
*
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).
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 petitioners’ contentions related to asylum,
equitable tolling of the one-year filing requirement, and reopening to submit
additional evidence because petitioners failed to raise these issues to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, we decline to
consider the 2010 religious freedom report petitioners reference in their opening
brief because our review is limited to the administrative record underlying the
agency’s decision. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider their withholding of removal claim in light of this court’s disfavored
group cases because petitioners did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk
to show it is more likely than not they would be persecuted in Indonesia. See
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to
adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail
than would an asylum applicant”). Finally, we reject petitioners’ pattern and
practice argument.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 10-72416