Krista Regina Jap; Djoen Kiong Stefanus Tjhay v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KRISTA REGINA JAP; DJOEN KIONG
STEFANUS TJHAY,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73890
Agency Nos. A096-353-057
A095-635-884
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Krista Regina Jap and Djoen Kiong Stefanus Tjhay, natives and citizens of
Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
FILED
JUL 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-73890 2
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen.
Guzman v. INS, 318 F.3d 911, 912 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen where they failed to show prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See
Maroufi v. INS, 772 F.2d 597, 599-600 (9th Cir. 1985); see also 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”). Accordingly, petitioners’ request for reopening to apply a
disfavored-group analysis to Jap’s withholding of removal claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction to address petitioners’ contention that Tjhay should
have been given the opportunity to present evidence of his own individualized risk
because petitioners failed to exhaust this issue by raising it 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 of 2 --