FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
APRIYANTO, No. 10-73096
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-901-908
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012 **
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Apriyanto, 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 of discretion
*
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).
the denial of motions to reconsider, Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997
(9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition for review.
As a preliminary matter, we deny Apriyanto’s motion requesting that the
court take judicial notice of the 2010 United States Department of State
International Religious Freedom Report. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); Fisher v.
INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to
the administrative record). We also reject Apriyanto’s request that the court
reconsider its stance on whether there is a pattern or practice of persecution of
Christian Indonesians.
We do not address Apriyanto’s contention regarding asylum because this
claim was not addressed by the BIA, see Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986
(9th Cir. 2010) (this court’s review is limited to grounds relied upon by the BIA),
and Apriyanto does not argue the BIA erred, see Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Apriyanto’s motion to
reconsider his withholding of removal claim in light of this court’s disfavored
group cases, because Apriyanto did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk
to establish it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted. See Halim v.
2
Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[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”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3