SHIRLEY KESAULYA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-72416 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHIRLEY GRACE KESAULYA; et al., Petitioners, No. 10-72416 Agency Nos. A097-614-139 A097-614-140 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 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- * 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). 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 evidence to prevail than would an asylum applicant ). Finally, we reject petitioners pattern and practice argument. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 10-72416

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.