Moniung v. Holder , 442 F. App'x 608 ( 2011 )

10-4540-ag
Moniung v. Holder
BIA
Weisel, IJ
A096 427 449
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 20th day of December, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 JANNE JOHANNES MONIUNG,
14 Petitioner,
15 10-4540-ag
16 v. NAC
17
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Daniel E. Goldman, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Matthew A.
28 Spurlock, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, Civil
30 Division, United States Department
31 of Justice, Washington, 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 Petitioner, Janne Johannes Moniung, a native and
6 citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of an October 5, 2010,
7 decision of the BIA affirming the October 6, 2009, decision
8 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel denying his
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
11 Moniung, No. A096 427 449 (B.I.A. Oct. 5, 2010), aff’g No.
12 A096 427 449 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 6, 2009). We assume
13 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
17 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
18 2008). The applicable standards of review are well-
19 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin
20 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 Because Moniung does not challenge the agency’s
22 pretermission of asylum, individualized persecution finding,
2
1 or denial of CAT relief, we address only the merits of
2 withholding of removal based on a claimed pattern or
3 practice of persecution of Christians in Indonesia. See
4 Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7
5 (2d Cir. 2005).
6 For withholding of removal based on future harm,
7 applicants can show either that they would likely be singled
8 out for persecution on account of a protected ground or that
9 there is a pattern or practice of persecution of a group of
10 similarly situated persons. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(2),
11 1208.16(b)(2); Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 142-
12 43 (2d Cir. 2008). Moniung argues that the evidence in the
13 record demonstrates that there is a pattern or practice of
14 persecution of Christians in Indonesia. To establish a
15 pattern or practice of persecution against a particular
16 group, a petitioner must demonstrate that the harm to that
17 group is “so systemic or pervasive as to amount to a pattern
18 or practice of persecution.” In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec.
19 737, 741 (BIA 2005); see Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88, 91
20 (2d Cir. 2007).
21 The agency reasonably concluded that Moniung failed to
22 establish the existence of a pattern or practice of
3
1 persecution of Christians in Indonesia, as it relied on
2 country conditions evidence in the record, Moniung’s
3 testimony that he knew of only one attack against Christians
4 in Indonesia in the previous two years, the fact that 98
5 percent of the population in the area in which his family
6 lived were Christians, and Moniung’s failure to provide any
7 evidence of harm to Christians in that area. See Santoso v.
8 Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009) (upholding agency
9 conclusion of no pattern or practice of persecution in case
10 involving similar country conditions evidence).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
13 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
14 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
15 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
16 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
17 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
18 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
21
22
23
24
4