09-1292-ag
Andrias v. Holder
BIA
Lamb, IJ
A99-607-716
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 26 th day of January, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 NINA M. M. ANDRIAS,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-1292-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Yee Ling Poon; Robert Duk-Hwan Kim;
24 Law Offices of Yee Ling Poon, LLC,
25 New York, New York.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
2 General; John C. Cunningham, Senior
3 Litigation Counsel; Joseph D. Hardy,
4 Trial Attorney, Office of
5 Immigration Litigation, United
6 States Department of Justice,
7 Washington, D.C.
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
11 is DENIED.
12 Nina M. M. Andrias, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
13 seeks review of a March 5, 2009 order of the BIA affirming
14 the January 15, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
15 Elizabeth Lamb, which denied Andrias’s application for
16 asylum and withholding of removal. In re Nina M. M. Andrias
17 No. A099 607 716 (BIA Mar. 5, 2009), aff’g No. A099 607 716
18 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 15, 2008). We assume the
19 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
20 procedural history of this case.
21 Because, in its order, the BIA adopted and supplemented
22 the IJ’s decision, we review both decisions. See Yan Chen
23 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
24 applicable standards of review are well-settled. See
25 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see, Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d
2
1 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d
2 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2008).
3 The agency did not err in denying Andrias’s application
4 for asylum and withholding of removal. Andrias does not
5 challenge the agency’s finding that the harm she suffered
6 did not rise to the level of persecution. Nor does she
7 argue that she would be singled out for persecution if
8 returned to Indonesia. Instead, she contends that there
9 exists in Indonesia a pattern or practice of persecution
10 against ethnically Chinese and Christian Indonesians. See
11 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). However, the BIA has found
12 time and again that no such pattern or practice has been
13 proven. In re A-—, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (BIA 2005)
14 (citing Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530, 537 (3d Cir. 2005)).
15 This Court has found no error in such decisions. See, e.g.,
16 Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009).
17 Although the agency errs if it ignores a pattern or practice
18 claim, see Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88, 91-93 (2d Cir.
19 2007), it did not do so here, see Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t
20 of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[W]e
21 presume that an IJ has taken into account all of the
22 evidence before him, unless the record compellingly suggests
3
1 otherwise.”).
2 Because the agency did not err in concluding that
3 Andrias was not eligible for asylum, it did not err in
4 denying her application for withholding of removal. See
5 Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
7 DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the
8 petitioner's pending motion for a stay of removal as moot.
9
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
12
13
4