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: 2010-02-23
Citations: 367 F. App'x 774
Docket Number: No. 07-73255
Parties: Norman DJUANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 774–774

Head Matter:
Norman DJUANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73255.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 23, 2010.
Gihan L. Thomas, Esquire, Law Offices of Gihan L. Thomas, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Marion E. Guyton, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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, native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA's decision on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the new evidence Djuana submitted did not show prima facie eligibility for relief because the evidence only established there was on-going general strife in Indonesia and did not show any individualized risk to Djuana. See Kon-stantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 530 (9th Cir.1999).
We reject Djuana's contention that the BIA used the wrong standard in denying his motion to reopen, and we reject his contention that the BIA required him to submit affidavits.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.