Ventje Nelwan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VENTJE NELWAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71894
Agency No. A078-020-324
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ventje Nelwan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
SEP 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71894 2
denial of motions to reconsider, Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th
Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Nelwan’s motion where it
concluded Nelwan failed to show sufficient individualized risk, even under a
disfavored group analysis, to meet the more likely than not standard for
withholding of removal. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1065-66 (9th Cir.
2009) (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a
considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail”).
Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to reconsider its
prior order in light of Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --