10-594-ag
Tjitajaya v. Holder
BIA
Balasquide, IJ
A094 044 947
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 28 th day of January, two thousand eleven,
PRESENT:
GUIDO CALABRESI,
REENA RAGGI,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
JUNAEDY TJITAJAYA,
Petitioner,
v. 10-594-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, New
York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Samia Naseem, Of Counsel;
John C. Cunningham, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Civil Division,
Office of Immigration Litigation,
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 Junaedy Tjitajaya, a native and citizen of
Indonesia, seeks review of a January 20, 2010 decision of
the BIA affirming the March 27, 2008, decision of
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Javier Balasquide denying
Tjitajaya’s application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
re Junaedy Tjitajaya, No. A094 044 947 (BIA Jan. 20, 2010),
aff’g No. A094 044 947 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 27, 2008).
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); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157-
2
58 (2d Cir. 2008).
The only issue before us is whether the agency erred in
finding that Tjitajaya failed to demonstrate a pattern or
practice of persecution of ethnic Chinese Christians in
Indonesia. In order to establish eligibility for asylum, an
applicant is not required to demonstrate that he would be
individually singled out for persecution if he demonstrates
a “pattern or practice” of “persecution of a group of
persons similarly situated to” him on account of a protected
ground and establishes his own “inclusion in, and
identification with,” that group. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). However, the BIA has found time and
again that there is no such pattern or practice of
persecution of Chinese Christians in Indonesia. See, e.g.,
In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (BIA 2005). We have
found no error in such decisions. See, e.g., Santoso v.
Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009).
Because the agency reasonably found that he did not
demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, Tjitajaya’s
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
relief fail as they were based on the same factual
predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.
3
2006).
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 DISMISSED 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