
    Krista Regina JAP; Djoen Kiong Stefanus Tjhay, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73890.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 9, 2012.
    Albert C. Lum, Sr., Esquire, Law Office of Albert C. Lum, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.
    John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Krista Regina Jap and Djoen Kiong Ste-fanus 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. § 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     