FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNSON NAPITULPULU, No. 10-71673
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-634-743
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2013 **
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Johnson Napitulpulu, 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 dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Napitulpulu’s contentions related to asylum
and equitable tolling of the one-year filing requirement because he failed to raise
them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). We
do not consider the 2010 U.S. Department of State International Religious
Freedom Report for Indonesia that Napitulpulu 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).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Napitulpulu’s motion to
reconsider his withholding of removal claim in light of this court’s disfavored
group cases because Napitulpulu did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk
to show it is more likely than not he 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”). We reject Napitulpulu’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 the 2010 religious freedom report.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 10-71673