Norman Djuana v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORMAN DJUANA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70088
Agency No. A079-566-536
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Norman Djuana, 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
FILED
MAY 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70088 2
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.
Djuana filed a motion to reopen with the BIA based on Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) and Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir.
2010). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Djuana’s motion, where
Djuana did not present any evidence of individualized risk of persecution. See
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066
(“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a considerably
larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would an asylum
applicant”). The record does not support Djuana’s contention that the BIA failed
to apply a disfavored group analysis to his claim. Accordingly, we deny the
petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --