Puspita v. Holder

11-4130
Puspita v. Holder
BIA
Hom, IJ
A089 198 382
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse,40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 13th day of September, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 WAICELLIA CHANDRA PUSPITA,
14 Petitioner,
15 11-4130
16 v. NAC
17
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, Youman, Madeo &
24 Fasano, LLP, New York, N.Y..
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Melissa Neiman-
28 Kelting, Senior Litigation Counsel;
29 Lori B. Warlick, Trial Attorney,
30 Office of Immigration Litigation,
31 Civil Division, United States
32 Department of Justice, Washington,
33 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 Waicella Chandra Puspita, a native and
6 citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of a September 12, 2011,
7 decision of the BIA, dismissing her appeal from the April 5,
8 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Hom,
9 which denied her application for asylum, withholding of
10 removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
11 (“CAT”). In re Waicella Chandra Puspita, No. A089 198 382
12 (B.I.A. Sept. 12, 2011), aff’ing, No. A089 198 382 (Immig.
13 Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 5, 2010). We assume the parties’
14 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
15 of the case.
16 Under the circumstances presented, we review both the
17 IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.”
18 Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (per
19 curiam)(internal quotation marks omitted). The applicable
20 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C.
21 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d
22 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
23
2
1 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
2 determination that Puspita failed to establish a pattern or
3 practice of persecution against ethnic Chinese Christians in
4 Indonesia, thus vitiating her claim of a well-founded fear
5 of future persecution. As the agency observed, record
6 evidence—and, in particular, recent U.S. State Department
7 reports—confirms that ethnic and religious conflict has
8 decreased substantially in recent years, and that the
9 Indonesian government has taken noticeable steps to
10 prosecute those responsible for sectarian violence. These
11 facts refute Puspita’s assertion that the Indonesian
12 government is unwilling or unable to control anti-Chinese
13 Christian violence, and are fatal to her pattern-or-practice
14 claim. See Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir.
15 2009) (identifying no error in agency determination that
16 there is not a pattern or practice of persecution of ethnic
17 Chinese Christians in Indonesia based on U.S. State
18 Department reports).
19 In addition, we decline Puspita’s invitation to adopt
20 the “disfavored group” analysis addressed by the Ninth
21 Circuit in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir.
22 2004), which we have consistently refused to adopt in the
23 past, and we conclude that, in general, the BIA’s legal
3
1 analysis of Puspita’s pattern-or-practice claim was proper.
2 Moreover, unlike the situation in Mufied v. Mukasey, 508
3 F.3d 88, 93 (2d Cir. 2007), the agency here considered
4 Puspita’s pattern-or-practice claim. For these reasons, the
5 agency did not err by denying Puspita’s claims for asylum
6 and withholding of removal, which were based on the same
7 factual predicate.1 See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156
8 (2d Cir. 2006).
9 The petition for review is DENIED.
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
1
Because Puspita does not challenge the agency’s
determination that she failed to demonstrate past
persecution or the agency’s denial of her claim for CAT
relief, she has abandoned these issues and we decline to
consider them. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d
540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
4