Glenny Tenda v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Glenny Tenda v. Eric Holder, Jr.

535 F. App'x 582

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 31, 2013

Docket11-72416

StatusUnpublished

This text of 535 F. App'x 582 (Glenny Tenda v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glenny Tenda v. Eric Holder, Jr., 535 F. App'x 582 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Glenny Nicholas Tenda, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion for reconsideration. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Tenda contends the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration of his application for withholding of removal in light of this court’s decisions in Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir.2009), and Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir.2010). We reject Tenda’s argument in light of our prior decision, Tenda v. Mukasey, 299 Fed.Appx. 635 (9th Cir.2008), in which this court applied the disfavored group analysis to Ten-da’s withholding of removal claim based on his status as an Indonesian Christian and rejected it. This court lacks jurisdiction to review Tenda’s claim that he is eligible for withholding of removal as an ethnic Chinese Indonesian because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 *583 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). We also lack jurisdiction to review his argument that he faces an individualized risk of persecution due to his United States citizen son. See id.

Further, we deny Tenda’s motion to take judicial notice of the two versions of the 2010 U.S. Department of State International Religious Freedom Report for Indonesia. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

Finally, we reject Tenda’s requests that the court reconsider its stance regarding a pattern or practice of persecution or require the BIA to reconsider his motion on this basis.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Glenny Nicholas Tenda, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion for reconsideration. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Tenda contends the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration of his application for withholding of removal in light of this court’s decisions in Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir.2009), and Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir.2010). We reject Tenda’s argument in light of our prior decision, Tenda v. Mukasey, 299 Fed.Appx. 635 (9th Cir.2008), in which this court applied the disfavored group analysis to Ten-da’s withholding of removal claim based on his status as an Indonesian Christian and rejected it. This court lacks jurisdiction to review Tenda’s claim that he is eligible for withholding of removal as an ethnic Chinese Indonesian because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 *583 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). We also lack jurisdiction to review his argument that he faces an individualized risk of persecution due to his United States citizen son. See id.

Further, we deny Tenda’s motion to take judicial notice of the two versions of the 2010 U.S. Department of State International Religious Freedom Report for Indonesia. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

Finally, we reject Tenda’s requests that the court reconsider its stance regarding a pattern or practice of persecution or require the BIA to reconsider his motion on this basis.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

535 F. App'x 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glenny-tenda-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack