Krista Jap v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           JUL 09 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    KRISTA REGINA JAP; DJOEN KIONG                   No. 09-73890
    STEFANUS TJHAY,
    Agency Nos. A096-353-057
    Petitioners,                                  A095-635-884
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted June 26, 2012 **
    Before:        SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    Krista Regina Jap and Djoen Kiong Stefanus Tjhay, natives and citizens of
    Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
    dismissing their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen.
    Guzman v. INS, 
    318 F.3d 911
    , 912 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). We deny in
    part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
    reopen where they failed to show prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See
    Maroufi v. INS, 
    772 F.2d 597
    , 599-600 (9th Cir. 1985); see also 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
    evidence to prevail”). Accordingly, petitioners’ request for reopening to apply a
    disfavored-group analysis to Jap’s withholding of removal claim fails.
    We lack jurisdiction to address petitioners’ contention that Tjhay should
    have been given the opportunity to present evidence of his own individualized risk
    because petitioners failed to exhaust this issue by raising it to the BIA. See Barron
    v. Ashcroft, 
    358 F.3d 674
    , 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                   09-73890
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-73890

Judges: Schroeder, Hawkins, Gould

Filed Date: 7/9/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024