Jahotman Sihotang 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JAHOTMAN SIHOTANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70315
Agency No. A078-020-310
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Jahotman Sihotang, 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.
FILED
AUG 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-70315 2
INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we review de novo constitutional
challenges to a statute, Munoz v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2003). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA denied Sihotang’s motion as untimely. Sihotang does not contest
this dispositive finding.
Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sihotang’s motion
on the alternative grounds that, even as an Indonesian Christian, Sihotang failed to
make a prima facie showing of any individualized risk to establish a clear
probability of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1055-56 (9th
Cir. 2009); Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not
consider Sihotang’s argument that he was persecuted on account of his Chinese
ethnicity because he raises it for the first time before this court.
We lack jurisdiction to review Sihotang’s contentions related to asylum
because his motion to reconsider only raised his withholding of removal claim.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Sihotang’s due process
claim related to asylum fails for the same reason.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --