
    Gjonggi PANJAITAN; Risma Panjaitan, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71768.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 16, 2012.
    Albert C. Lum, Sr., Esquire, Law Office of Albert C. Lum, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Jessica Eden Sherman, Esquire, Trial, Nairi Simonian Gruzenski, Esquire, DOJ, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gjonggi Panjaitan and Risma Panjaitan, 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 review petitioners’ asylum contentions related to the one-year filing requirement, including their due process contention, because they failed to raise these issues to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). We do not address petitioners’ remaining contentions regarding asylum because these claims were not addressed by the BIA, see Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010) (this court’s review is limited to grounds relied upon by the BIA), and petitioners do not argue the BIA erred, see Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

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 that 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”).

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). Finally, we reject petitioners’ requests that the court reconsider its stance regarding a pattern or practice of persecution or require the agency to revisit the issue in light of the 2010 religious freedom report.

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