Pekoenegoro v. Holder , 439 F. App'x 75 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •          10-3693-ag                                                                    BIA
    Pekoenegoro v. Holder                                                    Rohan, IJ
    A097 839 070
    A097 839 071
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
    SUMMARY ORDER
    RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
    FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
    APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
    IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
    ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
    ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
    1            At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
    2       for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    3       United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
    4       New York, on the 5th day of October, two thousand eleven.
    5
    6       PRESENT:
    7                JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN,
    8                GUIDO CALABRESI,
    9                RICHARD C. WESLEY,
    10                        Circuit Judges.
    11       _________________________________________
    12
    13       FRANGKY PEKOENEGORO, MARIA SINTYA DEWI,
    14                Petitioners,
    15
    16                          v.                                  10-3693-ag
    17                                                              NAC
    18       ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
    19       ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    20                Respondent.
    21       _______________________________________
    22
    23       FOR PETITIONERS:                 Linda Kenepaske, New York, New York.
    24
    25       FOR RESPONDENT:                  Tony West, Assistant Attorney
    26                                        General; Anthony W. Norwood, Senior
    27                                        Litigation Counsel; Micheline
    28                                        Hershey, Attorney, United States
    29                                        Department of Justice, Office of
    30                                        Immigration Litigation, Washington,
    31                                        D.C.
    1       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
    2   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
    3   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
    4   is DENIED.
    5       Frangky Pekoenegoro and Maria Sintya Dewi, natives and
    6   citizens of Indonesia, seek review of an August 17, 2010,
    7   order of the BIA affirming the December 15, 2008, decision
    8   of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Patricia A. Rohan, which denied
    9   their applications for asylum, withholding of removal and
    10   relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).      In re
    11   Frangky Pekoenegoro and Maria Sintya Dewi, Nos. A097 839
    12   070/071 (B.I.A. Aug. 17, 2010), aff’g Nos. A097 839 070/071
    13   (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 15, 2008).   We assume the
    14   parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
    15   procedural history in this case.
    16       Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
    17   the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision.
    18   See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 
    417 F.3d 268
    , 271 (2d Cir. 2005).
    19   The applicable standards of review are well-established.
    20   See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 
    562 F.3d 510
    , 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
    21       The only issues before us are Petitioners’ eligibility
    22   for withholding of removal and CAT relief.   The agency
    23   reasonably determined that Pekoenegoro and Dewi failed to
    24   demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of
    25   future persecution.   As the agency found, the harm
    2
    1   Pekoenegoro and Dewi described — including taunts and other
    2   verbal abuse, isolated physical harm, including
    3   Pekoenegoro’s 1999 assault, two instances of sexual
    4   harassment of Dewi, and Dewi’s detention by government
    5   officers when she tried to obtain a passport — was
    6   insufficient, considered either individually or in the
    7   aggregate, to constitute persecution, as neither Pekoenegoro
    8   nor Dewi was subjected to serious physical or mental harm.
    9   See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 
    433 F.3d 332
    , 341-
    10   42 (2d Cir. 2006) (in order for harm to constitute
    11   persecution, it must be sufficiently severe, rising above
    12   “mere harassment”); Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211,
    13   222 (BIA 1985), overruled, in part, on other grounds, INS v.
    14   Cardoza-Fonseca, 
    480 U.S. 421
    (1987).   Moreover, with the
    15   exception of Dewi’s brief detention, Petitioners were
    16   consistently harmed by other Indonesians, and not by, or
    17   with the consent of, the Indonesian government.      See Acosta,
    18   19 I. & N. Dec. at 222.
    19       Because Pekoenegoro and Dewi did not establish past
    20   persecution, they are not entitled to a presumption of
    21   future persecution.   See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1).    Although
    22   Petitioners argue, independent from their claim of past
    23   persecution, a pattern or practice of persecution of ethnic
    24   Chinese Christians, see 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2) (providing
    3
    1   that an applicant for asylum shall not be required to show
    2   that he will be singled out individually for persecution if
    3   he establishes that there is a pattern or practice of
    4   persecution of a group of similarly situated persons);
    5   Mufied v. Mukasey, 
    508 F.3d 88
    , 91 (2d Cir. 2007),
    6   substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
    7   Pekoenegoro and Dewi did not establish a pattern or practice
    8   in Indonesia, see Santoso v. Holder, 
    580 F.3d 110
    (2d Cir.
    9   2009).
    10       Because Pekoenegoro and Dewi did not establish past
    11   persecution, a likelihood of future persecution, or a
    12   pattern or practice of persecution, the agency did not err
    13   in denying their application for withholding of removal.
    14   See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1), (2).   Moreover, because
    15   Petitioners’ CAT claim was based on the same factual
    16   predicate, they similarly failed to meet their burden for
    17   that form of relief.   See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of
    18   Justice, 
    426 F.3d 520
    , 522-23 (2d Cir. 2005).
    19       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
    20   DENIED.   As we have completed our review, any stay of
    21   removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
    22   is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
    23   this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
    24   oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
    4
    1   Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
    2   Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
    3                                 FOR THE COURT:
    4                                 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    5
    5