
    Bernard MAMBO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72081.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 15, 2012.
    Albert C. Lum, Sr., Esquire, Law Office of Albert C. Lum, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
    Sharon Michele Clay, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department Of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Aliza Bessie Alyeshmerni, Trial, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mambo’s motion to reconsider his withholding of removal claim in light of this court’s disfavored group cases, because Mambo did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk to show it is more likely than not he would be persecuted. 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”). We reject Mambo’s request that the court reconsider its stance regarding a pattern or practice of persecution. We do not consider the 2010 report Mambo attached to his opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to the administrative record).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Mambo’s contentions related to asylum and equitable tolling of the one-year bar requirement because he failed to raise them 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.
     