N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AR IEF KUR

N IADI JAC OB SON, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-70138 Age n c y No. A098-267-268 M EM O R ANDUM *

AR IEF KUR

N IADI JAC OB SON, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-74106 Age n c y No. A098-267-268

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls 

# FIL ED NOV 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Subm itte d Nove m b e r 20, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M . SM ITH a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a n d SC HEINDLIN, * ** Se nior Distric t Judge . Arie f Kurnia d i Ja c obson, na t ive and c i tiz e n of Indone sia , pe titions for re vie w of the de c ision by the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) (1) a ffirm ing the i m m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny i ng Ja c o bson’ s m otion to re ope n his a sy lum c la im , a

nd (2) de ny i ng his m otion to re ope n or re c onside r the de nia l of withholding of rem o v a l. 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a), and we de ny the pe titions for re vie w. 2 1. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing Ja c obson’ s m o tion to re ope n his a sy lum c la i m . Se e Rojas-Garc ia v . Ashc roft , 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th C ir. 2003)

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble Shira Ann Sc he i ndlin, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by

de s igna tion. 1 Ja c obson a lso a

rgue s in his opening brie f tha t the B IA e rre d

in de ny ing him re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture . W e la c k jurisdic tion ove r this issue , be c a use Ja c obson did not ex ha u st this c l a im

be fore the B IA. Se e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th C ir. 2004).

2 W e do not a ddre ss C a se No. 13-70138 be c a use it is moot. The only issue ra ise d in C a se No. 13-70138 wa s the fa ilure of the B IA to re issue a fina l orde r of re m ova l. The B IA re i ssue d its M arc h 24, 2011 final orde r, whic h orde r wa s a ppe a le d (C a se No. 13-74106). 2(pe t itione r m ust show pre

judic e to pre va il on a

n ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la im ). Ja c obson did not file his a sy lum a

pplic ation until Oc t obe r 2006— one y e a r following his cha

nge in im m igration sta

tus. Ja c obson a lle ge s this de la y wa s c a use d by his a ttorne y ’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c o unse l. Ja c obson a sse rts tha t, but for his c ounse l’ s e rror, the a pplic ation would ha

ve be e n file d in July

2006. The B IA c onc lude d tha

t a ny fa ilure of his prior c ounse l wa s not pre judic ia l, be c a

use the de la y (whe the r it be nine or twe lve m o nths) wa s unre a sona ble . The c onc l usion tha

t a nine -m onth de la

y wa s unre a s ona

ble wa s not a

n a buse of disc re tion. S

e eW ak k a ry v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1057-58 (9th C ir. 2009). First, Ja c obson’ s a lle gations of c ha nge d c irc um sta

nc e s or e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta nc e s we re a ll known to him by Oc t obe r 2005. Se c ond, Ja c obson ne ve r provide d a

ny e xpla nation why

he fa ile d to a

pply for a sy lum within a

re a sona ble pe riod a fte r le arning of the se c irc um sta nc e s. 2. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing Ja c obson’ s m o tion to re ope n or re c onside r his withholding of re m ova l c la im

be c a use he wa s a

m e m be r of a disfa vore d group. Se e W

ak k ary , 558 F.3d a

t 1066 (“ An a

pplic ant for withholding of re m ova l will ne e d to a dduc e a c onside ra

bly la rge r qua ntum of individualiz e d -risk e vide nc e to pre va i l tha n would a n a sy lum a

pplic ant . . . .” ). Ja c o bson is a

m e m be r of a disfa vore d group in Indone sia . Se eid . at 1053. 3Howe ve r, a

bse nt som e e vide nc e Ja c obson wa s individual ly ta rge te d , m e m

be rship in a disfa vore d group is not en o ugh. Id . at 1066. TheB IA c onc lude d tha t Ja c o bson did not produc e suffic ie nt e vide nc e of a n individualiz e d risk. Rathe r, m ost of theha

rm to whic h Ja c obson te stifie d wa s a re sult of ge ne ra l viole nc e and not ta rge te d at e ithe r Ja c obson or his fa m i ly . Although Jac obson suffe re d one inc i de nt of individua

l iz e d ha rm whe n he wa s te n, tha

t inc ide nt a lone doe s not suffic e for the qua

ntum of e vide nc e ne c e ssa

ry to show tha

t his “ pre dic am e nt [wa s ] a ppre c ia bly diffe re nt from

the d ange rs fa c e d by

[his] fe llow [Indone sia

ns] .” Singh v . IN S , 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th C ir. 1998) (quoting K o tasz v . IN

S, 31 F.3d 847, 852 (9th C ir. 1994)). PE T IT IO NS FO R

RE V IE WDE NIE D.

4