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NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 15 2012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
BERNARD MAMBO, No. 10-72081
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-142-750
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.
Bernard Mambo, 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 an
abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider. Cano-Merida v.
*
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).
INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mambo’s motion to
reconsider his withholding of removal claim in light of this court’s disfavored
group cases, because Mambo did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk to
show it is more likely than not he would be persecuted. 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”). We reject Mambo’s request that the court reconsider its
stance regarding a pattern or practice of persecution. We do not consider the 2010
report Mambo attached to his opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to the administrative
record).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Mambo’s contentions related to
asylum and equitable tolling of the one-year bar requirement because he failed to
raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 10-72081