FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOTMAN-EFENDY SIMBOLON, No. 10-71438
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-020-312
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Hotman-Efendy Simbolon, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen/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 reopen or 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). We dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
The only argument Simbolon raised in his motion was reexamination of his
eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, based on a pattern or practice of
persecution against Christians in Indonesia, in light of Mufied v. Mukasey, 508
F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review Simbolon’s
contentions regarding the one-year bar and disfavored group analysis. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over claims not
presented below).
In addition, we decline to consider the 2010 religious freedom report
Simbolon references in his 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). In light of this conclusion, we reject as
unnecessary the government’s request to strike the portions of Simbolon’s opening
brief that rely on the 2010 religious freedom report.
Finally, we reject Simbolon’s requests that the court reconsider its stance
regarding a pattern or practice of persecution or require the agency to revisit the
issue in light of recent reports.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 10-71438