Johan v. Holder , 492 F. App'x 190 ( 2012 )

11-2070-ag
Johan v. Holder
BIA
A097 150 220
Nelson, I.J.
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 August, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12 ______________________________________
13
14 LUCYANA HAPPY JOHAN,
15 Petitioner,
16 11-2070-ag
17 v. NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22
23 ______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Aaron Shapiro, The Shapiro Law Firm,
26 LLC, New York, New York.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
29 General; John Hogan, Senior
30 Litigation Counsel; Norah Ascoli
31 Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel,
1 Office of Immigration Litigation,
2 United States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
7 is DENIED.
8 Petitioner Lucyana Happy Johan, a native and citizen of
9 Indonesia, seeks review of an April 28, 2011, decision of
10 the BIA affirming the January 29, 2010, decision of
11 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson, denying Johan’s
12 application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief
13 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lucyana
14 Happy Johan, No. A097 150 220 (B.I.A. Apr. 28, 2011), aff’g,
15 No. A097 150 220 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 29, 2010). We
16 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
17 and procedural history of the case.
18 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both
19 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
20 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
21 2008). The applicable standards of review are
22 well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng
23 v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
24 In her brief, Johan does not argue that the agency
25 erred in finding that she could safely relocate within
2
1 Indonesia, and she has therefore abandoned any challenge to
2 this finding. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540,
3 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). This alone provides a
4 basis for denying the petition review as to Johan’s asylum
5 and withholding of removal claims. See 8 C.F.R.
6 §§ 1208.13(b), 1208.16(b)(2); Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476
7 F.3d 114, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An alien's ability to
8 relocate safely constitutes a ground, in and of itself, on
9 which an IJ’s denial of withholding of removal may be
10 based”); Singh v. BIA, 435 F.3d 216, 219 (2d Cir. 2006)
11 (“Asylum in the United States is not available to obviate
12 re-location to sanctuary in one's own country.”). Moreover,
13 the agency did not err in determining that Johan failed to
14 establish a pattern or practice of persecution against
15 Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See Santoso v. Holder, 580
16 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009). In Santoso, we upheld a BIA
17 determination that no such pattern or practice of
18 persecution exists. Id. at 112 (taking judicial notice of
19 the fact that “Indonesia is a nation state consisting of
20 approximately 6000 inhabited islands and that, in many
21 places, Roman Catholicism is predominant.”).
22 To the extent that Johan’s waiver of the agency’s
23 relocation finding is not also dispositive of her claim for
24 relief under the CAT, we find that the agency’s decision was
3
1 supported by substantial evidence, as Johan did not present
2 any particularized evidence that it is more likely than not
3 that she would be tortured in Indonesia. See Mu Xiang Lin
4 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 2005)
5 (rejecting CAT claim where petition relied on country
6 reports and provided “no additional particularized evidence
7 to support her claim”).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
10 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
11 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
12 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
13 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
14 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
15 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
18
19
20
21
4