
    Joutje PANTOUW; Elly Lae Worang, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-74105.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2015.
    
    Filed May 20, 2015.
    Bart Klein, Law Offices of Bart Klein, Seattle, WA, for Petitioners.
    John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial, OIL, 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: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joutje Pantouw and Elly Lae Worang, 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 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 consider petitioners’ contentions related to asylum and equitable tolling of the one-year filing requirement because they failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

The BIA denied petitioners’ motion to reconsider, finding they failed to demonstrate sufficient individualized risk of persecution to qualify for withholding of removal. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005); Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir.2009) (petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of individualized risk of harm under a disfavored group analysis to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution); 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”).. We reject petitioners’ contention that their motion to reconsider should have been granted for submission of more evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). We also reject petitioners’ requests that the court reconsider its stance regarding a pattern or practice of persecution or require the agency to revisit this issue.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     