Case Name: Ventje NELWAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-17
Citations: 479 F. App'x 126
Docket Number: No. 10-71894
Parties: Ventje NELWAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 126–127

Head Matter:
Ventje NELWAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71894.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 17, 2012.
Kathleen Siok-Sien Koh, Esquire, Law Office of Kathleen S. Koh, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Kristen Giuffreda Chapman, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. 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
Ventje Nelwan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reconsider, Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Nelwan's motion where it concluded Nelwan failed to show sufficient individualized risk, even under a disfavored group analysis, to meet the more likely than not standard for withholding of removal. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2009) ("[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail").
Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to reconsider its prior order in light of Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir.2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.