11-1292-ag BIA
Lingurar v. Holder Nelson, IJ
A200 109 155
A200 029 281
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 3rd day of May, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 AURICA MIHAELA LINGURAR, RADU DORU
14 LINGURAR,
15 Petitioners,
16
17 v. 11-1292-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _______________________________________
23
24
25 FOR PETITIONERS: Zamir Iosepovici, New York, New
26 York.
27
28
29
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
2 General; David V. Bernal, Assistant
3 Director; Stuart S. Nickum, Trial
4 Attorney, Office of Immigration
5 Litigation, United States Department
6 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
7
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 Aurica Mihaela Lingurar and Radu Doru Lingurar,
13 (“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Romania, seek
14 review of a March 7, 2011 order of the BIA affirming the May
15 13, 2009 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A.
16 Nelson, which denied their applications for asylum,
17 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
18 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Aurica Mihaela Lingurar,
19 Radu Doru Lingurar, No. A200 109 155, A200 029 281 (B.I.A.
20 March 7, 2011), aff’g No. A200 109 155, A200 029 281 (Immig.
21 Ct. N.Y. City May 13, 2009). We assume the parties’
22 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
23 in this case.
24 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
25 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
26 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
2
1 applicable standards of review are well established. See
2 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
3 The agency reasonably determined that Petitioners
4 failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
5 persecution. Petitioners proffered documentary evidence,
6 including State Department Reports from 2008 and 2004, that
7 noted persistent and widespread discrimination against Roma
8 in Romania by the police, employers, landlords, and within
9 the education and political systems. Specifically, the
10 background materials relate several instances in the past
11 decade when police brutality against Roma has resulted in
12 death or severe injury. Based on this evidence, the agency
13 reasonably found that Petitioners demonstrated that serious
14 discrimination against Roma existed in Romania. The agency
15 concluded, however, that these isolated incidents of
16 documented police brutality and other harassment and
17 discrimination are insufficiently systemic or pervasive to
18 constitute a pattern or practice of persecution. See
19 Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009)
20 (upholding rejection of pattern or practice claim when
21 religious attacks were localized).
22
3
1 The record did not compel the agency to resolve the
2 pattern or practice analysis in Petitioners’ favor.
3 Substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion, and
4 Petitioners were found not credible. See Jian Hui Shao v.
5 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 158-59, 171 (2d Cir. 2008). We
6 therefore defer to the agency’s determination that
7 Petitioners did not establish a pattern or practice of
8 persecution. See Yanqin Weng, 562 F.3d at 513.
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED.
11 FOR THE COURT:
12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
13
14
4