Case Name: Shirley Grace KESAULYA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-22
Citations: 574 F. App'x 794
Docket Number: No. 10-72416
Parties: Shirley Grace KESAULYA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 574
Pages: 794–795

Head Matter:
Shirley Grace KESAULYA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72416.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 22, 2014.
Albert C. Lum, Sr., Esquire, Law Office of Albert C. Lum, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.
OIL, Carmel Aileen Morgan, Esquire, John D. Williams, Esquire, 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: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, 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
Shirley Grace Kesaulya and her son, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reconsider. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners' contentions related to asylum, equitable tolling of the one-year filing requirement, and reopening to submit additional evidence because petitioners failed to raise these issues to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). Further, we decline to consider the 2010 religious freedom report petitioners reference in their opening brief because our review is limited to the administrative record underlying the agency's decision. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reconsider their withholding of removal claim in light of this court's disfavored group cases because petitioners did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk to show it is more likely than not they would be persecuted in Indonesia. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir.2009); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th Cir.2009) ("[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evi dence to prevail than would an asylum applicant"). Finally, we reject petitioners' pattern and practice argument.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.