Hok Tjoen Tjiang v. Holder , 447 F. App'x 241 ( 2011 )

10-3770-ag
Tjiang v. Holder
BIA
Morace, IJ
A097 701 726
A094 813 659
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 21st day of November, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 HOK TJOEN TJIANG, KIM LIEN TJIANG,
14 Petitioners,
15
16 v. 10-3770-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONERS: Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; John S. Hogan, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Edward E.
29 Wiggers, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Hok Tjoen Tjiang and Kim Lien Tjiang, natives and
6 citizens of Indonesia, seek review of an August 23, 2010,
7 decision of the BIA affirming the January 14, 2009, decision
8 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip Morace denying their
9 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hok
11 Tjoen Tjiang, Kim Lien Tjiang, Nos. A097 701 726, A094 813
12 659 (B.I.A. Aug. 23, 2010), aff’g Nos. A097 701 726, A094
13 813 659 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 14, 2009). We assume the
14 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
15 procedural history of this case.
16 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
17 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
18 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
19 2008)(quoting Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.
20 2006)). The applicable standards of review are well-
21 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Aliyev v. Mukasey,
22 549 F.3d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 2008). Petitioners’ sole
23 argument before this Court is that the agency erred in
2
1 denying them asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief
2 because they established a pattern or practice of
3 persecution against Chinese Christians in Indonesia.
4 To establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of
5 removal, an applicant need not “provide evidence that there
6 is a reasonable possibility he or she would be singled out
7 individually for persecution if . . . [t]he applicant
8 establishes that there is a pattern or practice in his or
9 her country of nationality . . . of persecution of a group
10 of persons similarly situated to the applicant.” 8 C.F.R.
11 § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)(i).
12 The BIA has found time and again that there is no such
13 pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese
14 Christians in Indonesia, see, e.g., Matter of A-M-, 23 I. &
15 N. Dec. 737, 741 (BIA 2005), and we have found no error in
16 those decisions where the agency explicitly addresses the
17 applicant’s pattern or practice of persecution claim, see,
18 e.g., Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009).
19 Likewise, based on the record in this case, the agency did
20 not err in determining that petitioners failed to establish
21 a pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese
22 Christians in Indonesia. Indeed, the agency reasonably
23 found that although Chinese Christians face incidents of
3
1 harm, particularly by non-state actors, the record did not
2 establish that there is systemic persecution of that group.
3 See Santoso, 580 F.3d at 112; see also Matter of A-M-, 23 I.
4 & N. Dec. at 741-42.
5 Because the BIA reasonably determined that petitioners
6 failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based
7 on a pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese
8 Christians in Indonesia, it did not err in denying asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and CAT relief to the extent those
10 forms of relief were based on that claim. See 8 C.F.R.
11 § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)(i); see also
12 Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
15 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
16 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
17 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
18 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
19 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second
20 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4