Mario Roberto Bororing 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIO ROBERTO BORORING,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72293
Agency No. A078-020-218
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.
Mario Roberto Bororing, 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 abuse
of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d
FILED
NOV 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-72293 2
960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bororing’s motion to
reconsider his withholding of removal claim under the disfavored group analysis
where Bororing failed to show sufficient individualized risk to establish that 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) (“An 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 Bororing’s request to reconsider our stance regarding a pattern or
practice of persecution against Christians in Indonesia, and we do not consider the
2010 Report attached to his opening brief. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371
(9th Cir. 2010) (this court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Bororing’s contentions concerning equitable
tolling of the one-year time bar for his asylum application because he failed to
exhaust these arguments before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
678 (9th Cir. 2004). We do not consider Bororing’s remaining contentions
concerning his asylum claim because the claim was not addressed by the BIA, see

-- 2 of 3 --

10-72293 3
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 Bororing does not argue in his
opening brief that the BIA erred in failing to address the claim, see Rizk v. Holder,
629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in the opening brief are
deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --