Case Name: Norman DJUANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-17
Citations: 518 F. App'x 592
Docket Number: No. 11-70088
Parties: Norman DJUANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 518
Pages: 592–593

Head Matter:
Norman DJUANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-70088.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2013.
Filed May 17, 2013.
Kathleen Siok-Sien Koh, Esquire, Law Office of Kathleen S. Koh, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner.
ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Christina J. Martin, Esquire, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Norman Djuana, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Cano- Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.
Djuana filed a motion to reopen with the BIA based on Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir.2009) and Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir.2010). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Djuana's motion, where Djuana did not present any evidence of individualized risk of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir.2009); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 ("[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would an asylum applicant"). The record does not support Djuana's contention that the BIA failed to apply a disfavored group analysis to his claim. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.