Gjonggi Panjaitan; Risma Panjaitan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GJONGGI PANJAITAN; RISMA
PANJAITAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71768
Agency Nos. A079-195-348
A079-195-349
MEMORANDUM*
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.
Gjonggi Panjaitan and Risma Panjaitan, natives and citizens of Indonesia,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
NOV 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-71768 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Cano-Merida
v. 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 petitioners’ asylum contentions related to the
one-year filing requirement, including their due process contention, because they
failed to raise these issues to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004). We do not address petitioners’ remaining contentions regarding
asylum because these claims were not addressed by the BIA, see Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court’s review is limited to grounds
relied upon by the BIA), and petitioners do not argue the BIA erred, see Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically
raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reconsider their withholding of removal claim in light of this court’s disfavored
group cases because petitioners did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk
to show that it is more likely than not they 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

-- 2 of 3 --

10-71768 3
adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail
than would an asylum applicant”).
Further, we decline to consider the 2010 religious freedom report petitioners
reference in their 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). Finally, we reject petitioners’ 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.

-- 3 of 3 --