Case Name: TAN GIOK TJAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-15
Citations: 509 F. App'x 614
Docket Number: No. 11-70058
Parties: TAN GIOK TJAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 509
Pages: 614–614

Head Matter:
TAN GIOK TJAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-70058.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
Filed Feb. 15, 2013.
Albert Chow, Lin & Chow, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, Richard Zanfardino, Trial, Shahrzad Baghai, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, 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
Tan Giok Tjan, 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.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Tjan's motion to reopen that he filed based on Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir.2010), where Tjan did not present any evidence of individualized risk of persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir.2009); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (providing that a motion to reopen "shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material"). We reject Tjaris arguments regarding the agency's prior analysis of his disfavored group claims in light of our decision in Tjan v. Holder, 367 Fed.Appx. 776 (9th Cir.2010). 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.