Stefanus v. Holder

09-2108-ag Stefanus v. Holder BIA Videla, IJ A094 824 819 A099 927 425 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 30 th day of September, two thousand ten. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge, 9 GUIDO CALABRESI, 10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _______________________________________ 13 14 RAYNOLD STEFANUS, SYLVIA ELISABETH, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 09-2108-ag 18 NAC 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _______________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 27 General, Civil Division; Terri J. 28 Scadron, Assistant Director; Hillel 29 R. Smith, Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 Washington, D.C. 33 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 Raynold Stefanus and Sylvia Elisabeth, natives and 6 citizens of Indonesia, seek review of an April 21, 2009, 7 order of the BIA, affirming the November 28, 2007, decision 8 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Gabriel Videla, which denied 9 their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and 10 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 11 Raynold Stefanus, Sylvia Elisabeth, Nos. A094 824 819, A099 12 927 425 (B.I.A. Apr. 21, 2009), aff’g Nos. A094 824 819, 13 A099 927 425 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 28, 2007). We assume 14 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 15 procedural history in this case. 16 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both 17 the IJ and BIA decisions. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 18 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review 19 are well-established. See Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 20 95 (2d Cir. 2008); Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 21 2008). 22 The only issue before us is whether the agency erred by 23 failing to consider Petitioners’ claim that there exists a 2 1 pattern and practice of persecution of ethnic Chinese 2 Christians in Indonesia. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(2)(iii), 3 1208.16(b)(2). The IJ made no explicit pattern and practice 4 finding. However, the BIA did consider that claim, and 5 found, as it has time and again, that there is no such 6 pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese 7 Christians in Indonesia. See, e.g., In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. 8 Dec. 737, 740-41 (BIA 2005) (citing Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 9 F.3d 530, 537 (3d Cir. 2005)). We have found no error in 10 such decisions. See, e.g., Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 11 112 (2d Cir. 2009). 12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 13 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 14 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 15 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 16 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 17 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 18 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 19 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 20 FOR THE COURT: 21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 22 23 3