Johanes v. Holder

09-1112-ag
Johanes v. Holder
BIA
Elstein, IJ
A098 550 482
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS
FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1
AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A
LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST
ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION:
“(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER
TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED
BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT
HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE
ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE
DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.
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 23 rd day of December, two thousand nine.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
9 REENA RAGGI,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 LINTJE JOHANES, A.K.A. LINTJE JOHANNES,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-1112-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, New York, New
24 York.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
2 General; Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior
3 Litigation Counsel, Zoe J. Heller,
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 Lintje Johanes, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
14 seeks review of a February 19, 2009 order of the BIA,
15 affirming the September 10, 2007 decision of Immigration
16 Judge (“IJ”) Annette S. Elstein, which denied her
17 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
18 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lintje
19 Johanes, No. A098 550 482 (B.I.A. Feb. 19, 2009), aff’g No.
20 A098 550 482 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 10, 2007). We
21 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
22 and procedural history in this case.
23 We review the agency’s factual findings under the
24 substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. §
25 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95
26 (2d Cir. 2008). We review de novo questions of law and the
2
1 application of law to undisputed fact. Salimatou Bah v.
2 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
3 We find no error in the agency’s conclusion that
4 Johanes failed to meet her burden of proof on her
5 application for withholding of removal. 1 This Court has
6 consistently declined to disturb the agency’s finding that
7 there is no pattern or practice of persecution against
8 Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See Santoso v. Holder, 580
9 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing In re A-M-, 23 I&N Dec. 73710 (BIA 2005)). Moreover, the record in this case includes
11 reports by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
12 Resource Information Center and the Department of State
13 indicating that discrimination against ethnic Chinese in
14 Indonesia has greatly declined, and that many laws
15 discriminating against ethnic Chinese have been repealed.
16 Finally, the Board reasonably noted that Johanes’s actions
17 in remaining in Indonesia for a substantial amount of time
18 after she claims she was harmed and returning to the country
19 after arriving in the United States in 2006 undermine her
20 claim, as does the fact that her children and husband
1
Johanes concedes that we are without jurisdiction to
consider the agency’s pretermission of her untimely
asylum application.
3
1 continue to live safely in the country. 2 See Wensheng Yan
2 v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 63, 68 n.2 (2d Cir. 2007) ; Lie v.
3 Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530 (3d Cir. 2005) ; see also In re A-E-M-
4 , 21 I. & N. Dec. 1157, 1160 (BIA 1998).
5 Because Johanes failed to meaningfully argue her
6 eligibility for CAT relief before either the agency or this
7 Court, we deem such claim for relief abandoned. See Gui Yin
8 Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 723 n.6 (2d Cir. 2007).
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. Any pending request for
14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
16 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
19
20
21 By:___________________________
22
2
We reject Johanes’s request that we adopt the Ninth
Circuit’s “disfavored group” analysis. See Sael v.
Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2004)
4