11-3030-ag
Suryadi v. Holder
BIA
Chew, IJ
A088 240 149
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 29th day of July, two thousand thirteen.
PRESENT:
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
REENA RAGGI,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
MEGA YUSUF SURYADI,
Petitioner,
v. 11-3030
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: David Haghighi, Los Angeles, CA.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; David V. Bernal, Assistant
Director; Lauren E. Fascett, Trial
Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioner Mega Yusuf Suryadi, a native and citizen of
Indonesia, seeks review of a June 27, 2011, order of the BIA
affirming the May 13, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge
(“IJ”) George T. Chew denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mega Yusuf Suryadi, No. A088
240 149 (B.I.A. June 27, 2011), aff’g No. A088 240 149
(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 13, 2009). We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v.
Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513
(2d Cir. 2009). Suryadi does not challenge the agency’s
pretermission of his asylum application as untimely or its
denial of CAT relief. Accordingly we address only the
denial of withholding of removal.
2
Suryadi argues that the agency erred in finding him not
credible based on his failure to provide corroborating
evidence. This argument is misplaced. As the BIA
explained, the agency did not make an adverse credibility
decision in this case, but concluded that Suryadi’s
testimony alone was insufficient to meet his burden of proof
as he did not provide reasonably available corroboration
that he was an Ahmadiyya Muslim either from mosques he
attended in Indonesia and the United States or from his
mother who was in the United States. See Chuilu Liu v.
Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 197 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that “an
IJ, weighing the evidence to determine if the alien has met
his burden, may rely on the absence of corroborating
evidence adduced by an otherwise credible applicant unless
such evidence cannot be reasonably obtained”). Suryadi does
not meaningfully challenge that corroboration finding, and
we detect no error in it.
The agency’s finding that Suryadi did not prove that he
was an Ahmadiyya Muslim is dispositive of his claim for
withholding of removal because he did not demonstrate that
he faces persecution on account of his religion. See
Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004)
3
(explaining that an applicant for withholding of removal
must establish that he faces persecution on account of a
protected grounds, such as his religion). Accordingly, we
do not address Suryadi’s argument that his testimony
established past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for
oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4