Moy Lan Tjia v. Holder ( 2010 )

09-3235-ag
Tjia v. Holder
BIA
Mulligan, IJ
A099 682 981
A099 682 982
A099 682 980
A099 683 788
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 8 th day of July, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 PETER W. HALL,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 MOY LAN TJIA, LIP TJHONG TJIA,
14 FRANSISCUS REGGY FEILIP, VERONICA
15 SEILFRY FEILIP,
16 Petitioners,
17
18 v. 09-3235-ag
19 NAC
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 ______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONERS: H. Raymond Fasano, New York, New
26 York.
27
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
2 General; Ada E. Bosque, Senior
3 Litigation Counsel; Theo Nickerson,
4 Trial Attorney, Office of
5 Immigration Litigation, United
6 States Department of Justice,
7 Washington, D.C.
8
9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
12 is DENIED.
13 Petitioners, all natives and citizens of Indonesia,
14 seek review of a June 30, 2009, order of the BIA affirming
15 the October 30, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
16 Thomas J. Mulligan which denied their application for
17 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
18 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Tjia et. al.,
19 Nos. A099 682 981/982/980, A099 683 788 (BIA June 30, 2009),
20 aff’g Nos. A099 682 981/982/980, A099 683 788 (Immig. Ct.
21 N.Y. City, Oct. 30, 2007). We assume the parties’
22 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
23 in this case.
24 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
25 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
26 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review
27 factual findings of the BIA and IJ for substantial evidence.
2
1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
2 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
3 Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s finding that
4 they failed to demonstrate past persecution. Nor do they
5 argue that they would be singled out for persecution if
6 returned to Indonesia. Instead, they contend that there
7 exists in Indonesia a pattern or practice of persecution
8 against ethnically Chinese and Christian Indonesians.
9 See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). However, the BIA has
10 found time and again that there is no such pattern or
11 practice. See, e.g., In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 740-
12 41 (BIA 2005) (citing Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 537 (3d
13 Cir. 2005)). This Court has found no error in such
14 decisions. See, e.g., Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112
15 (2d Cir. 2009). Although the agency errs by ignoring a
16 pattern or practice claim, see Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d
17 88, 91-93 (2d Cir. 2007), it did not do so here. To the
18 contrary, after analyzing the “voluminous background
19 evidence,” and specifically addressing the State Department
20 Country Report and International Religious Freedom Report
21 for Indonesia, the IJ determined that despite ongoing
22 problems in that country, the record did not support
23 petitioners’ claims that their fear of persecution was
3
1 objectively well-founded. That finding was not erroneous.
2 See Santoso, 580 F.3d at 112; Mufied, 508 F.3d at 91-93.
3 Because the agency did not err in concluding that
4 petitioners were not eligible for asylum, it did not err in
5 denying their application for withholding of removal. See
6 Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
7 Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of their
8 application for CAT relief.
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
16
4